Cupertino City Council
May 20, 2025

Approved Building 1 Ground Floor Proposed Building 1 Ground Floor Figure 2 Comparison between the approved and proposed retail portions of Building 1. Retail is filled in with red, resident amenities in orange, and Back-ofHouse/Support in blue.

Proposed Modification
In the submitted proposed modification, June 18, 2024, letter submitted by the applicant (Attachment E), states that since their application is a modification to the overall Westport Development project, the developer of Building 1 remains eligible for the second of two allowable State density bonus law incentives and concessions allowed for the 8.1-acre Westport Development. Therefore, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 13. As illustrated in Figure 3, the proposed retail locations are on the corner of Building 1 adjacent to Mary Avenue, as well as the development’s driveway entrance along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The other uses along Stevens Creek are active and administrative uses limited to resident access, including the front office and wellness center for the senior assisted living facility.

Staff Analysis:

The applicant suggests that the spaces currently entitled as a retail area in Building 1 occupy ground floor building space that could otherwise be used for mechanical systems

3 The Westport Development includes 29 units of a base density of 237 units that are designated very low income. State density bonus law allows the development two incentives/concessions. 358
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
358 of 761
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 20, 2025

and back-of-house spaces for the senior assisted living facility. The currently proposed locations for these uses are in more expensive-to-build basements or upper-level building locations. Under State Density Bonus law, a developer is entitled to such incentives and concessions if there are identifiable and actual cost savings. 4 Further, should Building 1 be constructed, an agreement requires the users of Building 1 to pay for a portion of shared infrastructure with Building 2 as on-going site maintenance costs. This allows the operator of the BMR building (Building 2) better to finance the longterm operating costs of affordable units.

As identified earlier in the staff report, the Planning Commission recommended a waiver of parkland in lieu of dedication fees (including those already paid) if the applicant were able to increase the amount of retail space in the development to a total of 8,000 square feet, without any additional parking provided. The City Council should consider the Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions.

2. Assisted Living Unit Count
The Westport Development provides 12% of its base density as affordable to very lowincome households, which entitles the development to a 38.75% density bonus, or a total count of 329 units for the entire development pursuant to State density bonus law. As proposed, the total number of units in the development would increase from 259 to 272 units due to the addition of 13 assisted living units in Building 1 (12.8% Density Bonus).

This amounts to an increase from 123 assisted living units to 136 assisted living units in Building 1. The number of memory care rooms in Building 1 would remain unchanged at 35 units under the current proposal.

Staff Analysis
The original development approved in 2020, which included 48 BMR units and 219 market rate units (88 Townhome/Rowhomes, 131 Assisted Living units) was found consistent with the BMR Manual requiring that the BMR Units in Building 2 and Building 1:
 Be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance and overall quality of construction.  Unit size should be generally representative of the unit sizes within the market- rate portion of residential projects.
 Interior features and finishes in affordable units shall be durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing.

4 Government Code Section 65915(d), provides strict limitations on a city’s ability to deny an incentive or concession, requiring very specific findings supported with substantial evidence that the incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost savings or the incentive or concession would have a specific and adverse impact upon public health or safety, with the burden of proof upon the city. 359
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
359 of 761
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 20, 2025

The number of units proposed was within the limits of State Density Bonus Law, and the developer is mandated in accordance with the City’s BMR Manual to certain standards of “comparability” as mandated in the Manual’s section 2.3.4 (listed above).

Table 1 (below) shows the proposed unit mix within BMR Building 2 and the market-rate Building 1. The City Council had found that the original 2020 and 2021 approvals met the BMR Manual’s standard of comparability. Table 1 demonstrates that the comparability of the unit mix between Buildings 1 & 2, as proposed, is even more consistent with the City’s requirements than the project approved in 2021.

Table 1: Unit Comparability Between Buildings 1 & 2
Approved Building 1 (123 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Average Unit Size 530 s.f. 710 s.f. 1,110 s.f.

Unit Count 12 75 36
Mix Percentage 10% 61% 29%
Proposed Building 1 (136 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Average Unit Size 530 s.f. 710 s.f. 1,110 s.f.

Unit Count 27 79 30
Mix Percentage 20% 58% 22%
Building 2 (48 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom
Average Unit Size 518.6 s.f. 615.7 s.f. 843 s.f.

Unit Count 9 28 11
Mix Percentage 19% 58% 23%
Staff believes that the City Council should support the added units as they are within the allowed density of the development as approved, as well as continuing and improving the comparability between the units of Buildings 1 & 2.

3. Parking Reduction
Due to the amount of affordable housing and location of the site, the project had been previously approved with a Density Bonus reduced parking standard. The below-grade parking garage level in Building 1 was included to address the parking needs for Building 1 users (residents, visitors, staff and retail uses) and 23 spaces for Building 2 residents.

Through the current modification, the applicant is proposing to eliminate the underground parking and provide all necessary parking at the surface level. However, the applicant will continue meeting existing obligations to provide parking for the other portions of Westport Development (Building 2 residents and the town homes) and will adjust the parking provided for the users of Building 1 to be more reflective of the parking required to serve their needs, as further described below. 360
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
360 of 761
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 20, 2025

Staff Analysis
Parking for Building 2 users and Townhomes
The Westport Development utilizes the provisions of State density bonus law to provide

0.5 space per bedroom and the City may not impose a different, higher parking requirement for the development. Under State density bonus law, the project needed to provide a total of 30 spaces for Building 2. Seven of these spaces were provided at the surface level on the parcel on which Building 2 is located, while the remaining 23 spaces were to be provided in the underground parking garage. The applicant is now proposing to provide these 23 spaces, previously located below grade under Building 1, at-grade on the parcel that Building 1 will be located on. In addition, the applicant will continue to provide seven surface parking spaces for retail use in Building 2 on the Building 1 parcel.

The existing townhomes each have two car garages, with an additional 21 surface spaces available for guests on the parcel on which the townhomes are located. The applicant is proposing to continue to provide six parking spaces as guest parking for the townhome portion of the development at surface level on the Building 1 parcel. As a condition of approval, the applicant must mark all the spaces with signage to identify the intended parking space user prior to issuance of final occupancy.

Parking for Building 1 users
Changes to parking provided for Building 1 users include eliminating all parking spaces for the assisted living or memory care residents, providing 3 surface parking spaces for residents, 10 surface spaces for employees, 5 spaces for guests and 16 surface parking spaces for the reduced retail space, as indicated in Table 2 below. The applicant intended to rely upon the provisions of AB2097 to eliminate the underground parking but provide as much parking as they believe will be needed to serve Building 1 users and that the City may not impose any minimum parking requirements on their project. While the project site, due to its location, is eligible for AB2097’s parking provisions, the Westport project itself was approved prior to enactment of these provisions, and thus AB2097 cannot apply retroactively to this previously entitled project.

Table 2: Comparison of Approved and Proposed Parking
Previously Approved Proposed
Residential (Building 1)5 80 (below grade) 8
Residential (Building 2)6 26 (below grade) 26
Residential (Townhomes) 6 (surface) 6
Bldg. 1 Facility Employees 28 (below grade) 10

5 The Westport Development was approved with a parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces per bedroom in conformance with CA state density bonus law. Required parking for Building 1 residents would be 83. 6 See footnote 4. Required parking for Building 2 residents would be 30 spaces, seven spaces on the lot Building 2 is on, and the remaining on the lot that Building 1 is on. 361
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
361 of 761
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 20, 2025

Retail (Building 1) 71 (10 below grade, 61 surface) 16
Retail (Building 2) 7 (surface) 7
Total Building 1
218 (144 below grade and
74 surface) 73 (all surface)
However, since the property is in the Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses (P (CG/Res)) zoning district7, staff have prepared a parking analysis for the Building 1 user as seen in Table 3 below, based on the following information provided by the applicant (Attachment I):
 The median age of the tenants in the Senior assisted living units is anticipated to be approximately 84, based on the applicant/operator’s experience at similar facilities.

Therefore, a very small percentage (8%) of the tenants will drive or own a vehicle.

According to the applicant many residents dispose of, or donate, their vehicles prior to downsizing into one of their facilities, preferring to use the concierge vehicles operated by the facility.
 Almost 75% of the employees of their other facilities are incentivized to use alternative means of transportation or park elsewhere (here, De Anza College facilities are located close by, and the operator is in talks with them regarding parking arrangements).
 Guests are usually only at the facility for a maximum of 90 minutes per visit and can use public parking or park at De Anza College, if necessary.  Retail reduced to 4,000 square feet, significantly reducing parking demand based on the City’s retail parking standard of 1 space per 250 square feet.

Table 3: Anticipated Parking Demand vs. Proposed Supply For Building 1 Previously Approved Proposed Expected Gap
Residents 80 3 14 11
Employees (40 max per shift) 28 10 13 3
Guests (included in resident count) 5 10 5
Retail 71 16 16 0
Total 179 34 53 19
Based on the parking analysis, there appears to be a gap of approximately 19 spaces between the reasonably expected parking demand and the currently proposed parking space. Discussions with the applicant have indicated that they are voluntarily open to

7 CMC 19.80: Planned Development Zones is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the City that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses and to provide for greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. 362
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
362 of 761
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 20, 2025

adding surface parking spaces, where possible, to allow the parking supply to get closer to the expected parking demand. Upon an analysis of the site, it appears that there is room to add additional surface parking spaces within the site. However, the specific number of additional spaces that could be added has yet to be determined. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant is required to update the site plan to add a minimum of 20 onsite parking spaces, prior to issuance of building permits.

In the alternative, the applicant has suggested that they could eliminate the 4,000 square feet of retail space being provided in Building 1, by modifying their remaining Density Bonus Incentive/Concession request, which would allow the use of 16 spaces, currently earmarked for retail uses, for the residential portion of Building 1.

Staff recommends that the parking count as conditioned with the project, consistent with similarly programmed assisted living communities in the area, will provide enough parking on-site.

If the City Council disagrees with the above analysis, it could either recommend a different parking count that the developer must provide based on a different justification or deny the modification to the proposed parking arrangement on the basis that AB2097 does not apply to this project.

4. Architectural & Site Approval
As described previously, the developer proposes modifying Building 1 as follows:
 Increasing the footprint of the curved (sickle) portion of the building along Mary Avenue by 8 feet.
 Relocating the memory care terrace to the interior of the project to overlook the central green.
 Reducing ground floor height from 20 feet to 18 feet, with incremental height increases to the upper floors. The overall building height would be reduced to 78.6 feet due to this change.
 Moving the therapy pool terrace and wellness gym to the ground floor from the sixth floor. This reduces mass along Stevens Creek Boulevard on the sixth floor.

Staff Analysis
None of the changes listed above, have any effect on the programming of the site, except as previously described in the discussions related to the reduction of retail use and elimination of underground parking. The overall architectural theme of the project is not proposed to be modified with this application and the project proposes to continue to be very similar to the architectural style (Mediterranean) that was previously approved.

Therefore, Staff feels that City Council should support the modifications as proposed. 363
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
363 of 761
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 20, 2025

5. Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee
At the revised 136-unit count, Building 1 would be required to pay approximately $4,080,000 ($30,000 per senior citizen housing development unit) as Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fees. The applicant has identified the following as reasons for the City waving the fee:
 “New pedestrian walkways connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue through the project. The construction of the walkways is not strictly required by the City’s Zoning Code; however, they could improve pedestrian circulation in the area, including Creation of a connection between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Cupertino Memorial Park.
 Residents of the senior housing units in Building 1 cannot reasonably be anticipated to generate a material demand on City park lands and instead are more reasonably anticipated to use the open space amenities included in Building 1 and its publicly accessible, privately maintained Central Green.
 Strategy HE-2.3.9 of the Housing Element requires the City to explore revising its Park Land Dedication Fee, including a specific reference to allowing credits for privately owned and maintained public open spaces and other pedestrian connections and trails.”
Staff analysis
In accordance with the Municipal Code (CMC 13.08.100), park land shall be dedicated to the City or the fee in lieu thereof shall be paid, as determined by the City, at the time of building permit issuance or recordation of a final subdivision map, whichever occurs earliest. The City has consistently determined that the open space provided on site does not conform to the private open space (for which credit may be provided) nor the park land dedication requirement consistent with the requirements of CMC Chapter 13.08.050 (F). Therefore, the determination has been that the project must pay a Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fee subject to CMC Chapter 13.08.060 Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. To date, the developer has already paid $3.69MM for 123 units8. With the change to the programming, that is, providing 13 more assisted living units, the applicant would owe park land in lieu of dedication fees for these additional units in the approximate amount of $300,000.

The walkway referenced by the applicant as the justification for requesting a fee waiver is an existing vehicular path between Building 1 and the remainder of the Westport development, which has long been a part of the site design. It is not a new design feature,

8 $3.93M in park fees on 12/21/21 (131 units x $30,000). However, when the project scope was modified to reduce units from 131 to 123, the City issued the developer a refund of $240,000 (8 units x $30,000). 364
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
364 of 761
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 20, 2025

nor does it have separated/designated bike lanes or public access easements. As a result, the project should not receive credit for any connection afforded by this primarily vehicular connection. Additionally, since the project will be occupied by seniors, the park land dedication in lieu of fee is already discounted to allow for the estimated reduction in use of public open spaces by seniors as allowed by Chapter 13.08.

Further, although the Housing Element Strategy HE-2.3.9 may require the City to explore reduction in development fees, a policy to implement this strategy is not expected to be adopted until sometime in mid-2026. Accordingly, staff recommend that the City require the applicant to pay the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fee for the additional 13 units and does not recommend a refund/waiver of the fees that have already been paid.

However, the City could waive the fee if it wishes to assist this developer in the development of this market-rate project.

Approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for incentivizing adding an additional 4,000 square feet of retail (for a total of up to 8,000 square feet of retail) would require the City to refund $3.69MM in fees already paid and agree that applicants need not pay the additional unpaid fees associated with the additional 13 units.

Staff recommends that the City Council should consider the Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions.

Other Department/Agency Review
The City’s Building Division, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, Sheriff’s Department, Cupertino Sanitary District and the Santa Clara County Fire Department have reviewed and conditioned the project.

Reasons for Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the project modifications, with the conditions of the approval proposed, because the changes to the project will not create adverse traffic, noise, or safety impacts to the surrounding area and each finding for approval of the proposed project, consistent with Chapters 19.56, 19.156, and 19.168 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be made as reflected in the findings of the draft resolutions attached. The Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions as it relates
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
365
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
365 of 761
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 20, 2025

Fiscal Impact
If City Council would agree to the added Planning Commission condition that incentivizes the addition of 4,000 square of retail, the City could lose up to approximately $4 million in Park in-lieu fees.

City Work Program Item/Description
None
Council Goal
Housing and Quality of Life
California Environmental Quality Act
An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. The Final EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures were adopted and made conditions of project approval.

The City conducted a CEQA analysis of changes to the project to determine the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15164, an addendum to an EIR should be prepared where there are (1) no substantial changes to the project requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects of the project; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects of the project; and (3) no new, previously unknown or unknowable, information of substantial importance showing: (a) new or substantially more severe significant efforts than were discussed or shown in the EIR; (b) that previously infeasible mitigation measures/alternatives are now feasible and would substantially reduce significant efforts; or (c) that considerably different mitigation measures than analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce significant effects.

The analysis determined that proposed changes to the project meet the criteria for an addendum. To this end, an addendum was prepared (see Attachment F), in which they concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The addendum reviews each topic in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and concludes 366
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
366 of 761
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 20, 2025

that neither the modifications to the project nor new circumstance or information will result in an environmental impact that is new or more severe than the impacts studied in the Initial Study and EIR.

Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR. Therefore, Staff recommends that City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR. _____________________________________
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Acting City Manager Attachments:

A. Draft Resolution for M-2024-003
B. Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-003
C. Planning Commission Resolution 2025-05
D. Planning Commission Resolution 2025-06
E. Letter from J. Abrams Law to Cupertino City Staff dated June 18, 2024 F. Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 G. Project Plans
H. Public Comments
I. Applicant Parking Exhibit
367
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
367 of 761
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY

ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT

LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND
FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1
LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN
#326-27-048)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: M-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2025-06), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. 2025-05); and
368
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
368 of 761
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for a Development Permit.

WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposed residential development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner consistent with any applicable Government Code requirements, the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and underlying zoning regulations of the Municipal Code, and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and incentive/concession, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses. Additionally, all mitigation measures through the EIR Addendum that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and will be made conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
369
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
369 of 761

2. Notwithstanding subsection 19.156.040B(1), the Director of Community Development may deny a housing development project proposed under this Section with a written finding based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing
development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined and determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. To analyze the modifications of the project, an addendum was prepared in which they concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR.

3. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need. (Findings required by Government Code Section 65863(b)(2).)
The remaining sites in the housing element inventory are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The proposed project does not reduce the density of the site below what was projected in the City’s 5th Cycle housing element; the housing element shows a site capacity of 200 units, whereas 272 units are proposed. However, the proposed project includes only 48 lower income units, whereas the site was projected to contain 200 lower income units. Nonetheless, with the update to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Priority Housing sites in the inventory are adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need in that 1,2421lower income units have been approved by the City at the remaining housing element sites (Vallco Shopping District, Marina Plaza, the

1 Consisting of the following lower income units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 1,201 units; Veranda affordable housing (Barry Swenson site), 18 units; Marina Plaza, 16 units; Hamptons, 7 units net.
370
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
370 of 761
Hamptons, and the Barry Swenson site), well in excess of the 563 units that must be accommodated to meet the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The City has approved a total of 3,2092 units on these four sites, also well in excess of the City’s allocation of 1,064 units to meet its total share of the regional housing need.

The applicant has requested a density bonus. Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.56.070, before approving an application that includes a request for density bonus, incentive, parking reduction and/or waiver, the decision-making body shall make the following findings, as applicable:
a) A finding that the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any incentives, parking reductions or waivers requested.

The application isfor a density bonus project that provides for 20.5% of its base density as Below Market Rate Housing. Because 12% of the base units on-site will be available to Very Low Income seniors, the project is eligible for a 38.75 density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and up to two (2) incentives/concessions. b) A finding that the requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions based upon the documentation provided by the applicant and the findings of the peer reviewer, if incentive(s) or concession(s) are requested (other than mixed use development).

Consolidation of BMR Units: On August 19, 2020, the City Council approved a concession to consolidate all BMR units in Building 2, rather than dispersing them throughout Building 1 and the Townhouse/Rowhouse portion.

Reduction in Ground Floor Retail: In December 2021, the City Council approved a Heart of the City Exception to allow a reduced frontage along Stevens Creek to have retail uses (17,600 square feet of retail at the ground floor.) Since the project is eligible for two state density bonus law incentives and concessions, due to the amount of affordable housing provided with the project, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to further reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 1. The currently approved retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create a more efficient building design for the applicant. The applicant proposes to do this by locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than the previously approved, more expensiveto-build basement or upper-level building locations.

2 Consisting of the following total units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 2,402 units; Veranda (Barry Swenson site), 19 units; Marina Plaza, 188 units; Hamptons, 600 net new units. 371
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
371 of 761
c) If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all requirements included Section 19.56.030C have been met.

The density bonus is not based on the donation of land, so the finding is not applicable. d) If the density bonus is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (D) have been met. The density bonus is not based on the inclusion of a childcare facility, so the finding is not applicable.
e) If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, a finding that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (E) have been met.

The density bonus is not based on a condominium conversion, so the finding is not applicable.
f) If the incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.40 (B) (2) have been met.

While the project is a mixed-use development, the density bonus is not based on the mixed- used development as an incentive, so the finding is not applicable. g) If a waiver is requested, a finding that that the development standards for which the waivers are requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives or concessions permitted.

Height and Slope Setback Waivers: On August 19, 2020, the City Council found that applying the height and slope setback limitations to Buildings 1 & 2 would physically preclude the project by: (a) decreasing the amount of proposed open space and landscaped areas below what is otherwise required by the City; (b) reducing the average size of senior units; (c) reducing commercial ceiling heights; (d) decreasing above-ground parking and increasing underground parking. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would not increase the previously approved Height and Slope Setback waivers since the height of the proposed building is lower and therefore, the waiver is reduced.
h) If a reduction in off-street parking standards for an eligible housing development is requested, a finding that all the applicable requirements in Section 19.56.040.C have been met. (The project is eligible to provide 0.5 space per bedroom, which requires at least 11% very low income or 20% low income units; within one-half mile of a Major Transit Stop; and unobstructed Access to the Major Transit Stop.) The applicant is no longer requesting a reduction in offstreet parking standards pursuant to State Density Bonus law. 372
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
372 of 761

4. Since the applicable findings required above can be made, the decision-making body may deny an application for a waiver only if one of the following written findings as applicable to each type of application, supported by substantial evidence:
a) That the incentive or concession, or waiver would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or There are no affected Historic Resources in the vicinity. b) That the incentive, concession or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the residential project unaffordable to low- and moderateincome households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential project was deemed complete; or
As evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the First Addendum to the EIR, there are no significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential Project was deemed complete.
c) That the incentive, concession or waiver is contrary to state or federal law.

The requested waivers are not contrary to state or federal law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter and the Addendum, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 7 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby:

1. Determines that the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and

2. Adopts the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project; and

3. Approves the application for a Modification to the Development Permit, Application No. M-2024-003; and
373
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
373 of 761
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. M-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 20, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated September 6, 2024 consisting of 17 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, G00-G14, and A10 – A34, LSK 1, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT AND PRIOR APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file no. ASA-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval. The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TR-2018-22, TM2018- 03, TM-2021-002, DP-2018-05, U-2019-03, EXC-2019-03, EA-2018-04, EXC2021-003, ASA-2021-007, and M-2021-003 shall be applicable to this approval unless in conflict with the conditions of approval of this resolution.

4. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
Due to the reduction in retail commercial square footage in the development, 13,600 square feet of commercial allocation is returned to the available commercial allocation city-wide.

5. PARKING MODIFICATION
The applicant will work with Staff to supply a further 20 parking spaces dispersed within the Building 1 parcel to accommodate the employees, guests, and residents of the assisted living facility (including memory care).

6. PARKING SPACE SIGNAGE
All spaces within the development shall be marked to identify:
374
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
374 of 761
a. Parking for retail use restricted to retail use during the hours of operation of the business
b. Parking for Residential Building 2 for exclusive use c. Parking for Townhomes for exclusive use
d. Parking for Residential Building 1 for exclusive use for employees, residents and guests

7. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM REQUIRED The applicant shall submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the assisted living employees prior to Building Permit issuance.

8. RETAIL/PARKLAND IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION FEE
Applicant to consider increasing the proposed retail square footage to 8,000 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 4,000 square feet retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the approximate amount of $3.69MM, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000).

9. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The 375
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
375 of 761
applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.

10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements,reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC

WORKS DEPARTMENT

11. PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE
Prior to building permit issuance, the project is subject to payment of park fees inlieu of park land dedication under the City’s Park Land Dedication Fee (Chapter

13.08 and Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) for the 13 new dwelling units. The current fee is $30,000 per unit and may be subject to modifications per the City’s annual property assessment and latest fee schedule adjustment.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY

FIRE DEPARTMENT
376
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
376 of 761

12. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE
Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further requirements.

13. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.

NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s)

14. STANDPIPES REQUIRED
Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved.

Standpipes shall be manual wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection shall be in accordance with Chapter 32. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. CFC Sec. 905

15. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED
Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 6500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C. See approved hydrant spotting plan pc#20-4568

16. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such 377
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
377 of 761
requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7

17. REQUIRED FIRE DEPT. ACCESS
Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure.

2. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.

18. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED
Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 42 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1.

19. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. cul-de-sac.

CFC Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.

20. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS
Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating 378
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
378 of 761
fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official.

The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways.

Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends.

21. TIMING OF INSTALLATION
When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 CFC Sec. 501.4

22. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS
Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72.

23. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY
All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33

24. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other 379
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
379 of 761
sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1

25. FIRE LANES REQUIRED
The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required circulating access roadways and 60 feet where aerial access is required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Date
380
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
380 of 761
Resolution No.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED

TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND
DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2025-06), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. 2025-05); and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and 381
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
381 of 761
Resolution No.

WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proofrequired to support the application for a Development Permit.

WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project.

Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, waivers, and incentive/concession the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and incorporated into the project in order to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. The modifications do not influence the programming of the site and are all within the provisions of state law. As a result, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

2. The proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria:
a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings.

The project is within the approved Building 1 proposal as approved by City Council on December 21, 2021. This maintains the mix of housing types that include two 382 CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
382 of 761
Resolution No.

multistory high-density structures, as well as lower density townhome/rowhouse condominiums. The site is bordered by high density residential to the north and De Anza College to the South, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The development is designed to concentrate the taller structures on the northwest corner of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection while the shorter townhome/rowhouse structures are placed closer to the lower scale apartment and townhomes developments along Mary Avenue. This design provides a gradual transition between buildings of different height and bulk.
b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to adjoining property owners.

The design quality of the development is consistent with the original approval of Westport development from August 2020, as further modified in December 2021. Both the high-density structures and townhome/rowhouse buildings are consistent with the design qualities of a Mediterranean-type development and the architectural style is consistent throughout the development. Further, the planting plan is consistent with the intent of the Heart of the City Specific Plan guidelines. Unsightly uses such as loading and trash pickup have been placed within the buildings away from view of neighboring uses. Utility installations have been designed to be screened by landscaping and or incorporated into the building design. The final lighting for the development will be reviewed as part of the review of the project construction 383
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
383 of 761
Resolution No.

documents to ensure that they meet safety requirements while avoiding spill-over light to adjacent properties.
c. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.

Signage approval is not included in this application.
d. With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures.

The project does not abut any existing residential development. The existing multifamily development located across Mary Avenue (Glenbrook Apartments) will be buffered from any impact because the project has been designed to maintain trees along the frontage and has been designed with adequate parking on-site. The buildings have been designed with setbacks from the curb line greater than the 9-feet required within the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 5 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby Approves the application for a Architectural and Site Approval, Application No. ASA-2024-003
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 20, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated September 6, 2024 consisting of 17 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014,
384
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
384 of 761
Resolution No.

G00-G14, and A10 – A34, LSK 1, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. M-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval.

4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans.

5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans (including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development priorto issuance of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change.

6. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report.

The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.

The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.” 385
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
385 of 761
Resolution No.

7. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted. a. Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and water requirements for established landscapes. b. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and dethatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices. c. Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.

8. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full Landscape Documentation Package, per sections 14.15.050 A, B, C, and D of the Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area 500 square feet or more or elect to submit a Prescriptive Compliance Application per sections 14.15.040 A, B, and C for projects with landscape area between 500 square feet and 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Application shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits, and additional requirements per sections 14.15.040 D, E, F, and G or 14.15.050 E, F, G, H, and I will be required to be reviewed and approved prior to final inspections.

9. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g. texture, infiltration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and provide recommendations for amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water efficiency of the soil.The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package.

10. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, and the pesticide control 386
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
386 of 761
Resolution No.

measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.

11. SIGN PROGRAM
A sign program is required for this project. The sign program shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of sign permits.

12. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any structures approved in conjunction with the project.

13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area.

14. SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development priorto issuance of building permits.

15. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan:
 For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.  No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
 No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City’s consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree.  Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a fourinch depth.  Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.  Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. 387 CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
387 of 761
Resolution No.

 A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees, prior to final occupancy.

The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City’s consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.

16. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies.

17. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.

18. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The 388 CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
388 of 761
Resolution No.

applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.

19. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
389
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
389 of 761
Resolution No.

ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Date
390
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
390 of 761

CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-05

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE

APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT

PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND

GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048)
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit ASA.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino the 22nd day of April 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

RECUSED: COMMISSIONERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Piu Ghosh /s/Santosh Rao
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
391
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
391 of 761

EXHIBIT ASA
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED

TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND
DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. XXXX), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. XXX); and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and WHEREAS, on May X, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and
392
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
392 of 761
Resolution No.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proofrequired to support the application for a Development Permit.

WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project.

Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, waivers, and incentive/concession the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and incorporated into the project in order to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. The modifications do not influence the programming of the site and are all within the provisions of state law. As a result, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

2. The proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria:
393
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
393 of 761
Resolution No.

a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings.

The project is within the approved Building 1 proposal as approved by City Council on December 21, 2021. This maintains the mix of housing types that include two multistory high-density structures, as well as lower density townhome/rowhouse condominiums. The site is bordered by high density residential to the north and De Anza College to the South, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The development is designed to concentrate the taller structures on the northwest corner of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection while the shorter townhome/rowhouse structures are placed closer to the lower scale apartment and townhomes developments along Mary Avenue. This design provides a gradual transition between buildings of different height and bulk.
b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to adjoining property owners.

The design quality of the development is consistent with the original approval of Westport development from August 2020, as further modified in December 2021. Both the high-density structures and townhome/rowhouse buildings are consistent with the design qualities of a Mediterranean-type development and the architectural style is consistent throughout the development. Further, the planting plan is consistent with the intent of the Heart of the City Specific Plan guidelines. Unsightly uses such as loading and trash pickup have been placed within the buildings away from view of neighboring uses. Utility installations have been designed to be screened by landscaping and or incorporated into the building design. The final lighting for the development will be reviewed as part of the review of the project construction 394
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
394 of 761
Resolution No.

documents to ensure that they meet safety requirements while avoiding spill-over light to adjacent properties.
c. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.

Signage approval is not included in this application.
d. With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures.

The project does not abut any existing residential development. The existing multifamily development located across Mary Avenue (Glenbrook Apartments) will be buffered from any impact because the project has been designed to maintain trees along the frontage and has been designed with adequate parking on-site. The buildings have been designed with setbacks from the curb line greater than the 9-feet required within the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 5 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby Approves the application for a Architectural and Site Approval, Application No. ASA-2024-003
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April XX, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, 395
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
395 of 761
Resolution No.

G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. M-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval.

4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans.

5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans (including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development priorto issuance of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change.

6. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report.

The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.
396
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
396 of 761
Resolution No.

The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.”

7. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted. a. Schedules should take into account waterrequirements forthe plant establishment period and water requirements for established landscapes. b. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and dethatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices. c. Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.

8. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full Landscape Documentation Package, per sections 14.15.050 A, B, C, and D of the Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area 500 square feet or more or elect to submit a Prescriptive Compliance Application per sections 14.15.040 A, B, and C for projects with landscape area between 500 square feet and 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Application shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits, and additional requirements per sections 14.15.040 D, E, F, and G or 14.15.050 E, F, G, H, and I will be required to be reviewed and approved prior to final inspections.

9. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g. texture, infiltration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and provide recommendations for amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water efficiency of the soil.
397
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
397 of 761
Resolution No.

The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package.

10. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.

11. SIGN PROGRAM
A sign program is required for this project. The sign program shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of sign permits.

12. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any structures approved in conjunction with the project.

13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area.

14. SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development priorto issuance of building permits.
398
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
398 of 761
Resolution No.

15. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan:
• For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. • No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
• No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City’s consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. • Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a fourinch depth. • Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. • Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. • A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees, prior to final occupancy.

The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City’s consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.

16. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies.

17. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
399
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
399 of 761
Resolution No.

18. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages. 400
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
400 of 761
Resolution No.

19. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this XXth day of May, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Date
401
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
401 of 761

CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-06

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO

RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO A

PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO MODIFY

THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT

NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN #326-27-048)
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and approve the Modification to the Development Permit, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit M, with the following modifications:
• Add the following Conditions of approval:

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM REQUIRED The applicant shall submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the assisted living employees prior to Building Permit issuance.

RETAIL/PARKLAND IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION FEE
Applicant to consider increasing the proposed retail square footage to 8,000 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 4,000 square feet retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the approximate amount of $3.69MM, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000).

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino the 22nd day of April 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
402
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
402 of 761
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Piu Ghosh /s/Santosh Rao
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
403
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
403 of 761

EXHIBIT M
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,

DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR
CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD (APN #326-27-048)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: M-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. XXXX), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. XXX); and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and 404
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
404 of 761
WHEREAS, on May X, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proofrequired to support the application for a Development Permit.

WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project.

Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposed residential development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner consistent with any applicable Government Code requirements, the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and underlying zoning regulations of the Municipal Code, and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and incentive/concession, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses.

Additionally, all mitigation measures through the EIR Addendum that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and will be made conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

2. Notwithstanding subsection 19.156.040B(1), the Director of Community Development may deny a housing development project proposed under this Section with a written finding based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing 405
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
405 of 761
development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined and determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. To analyze the modifications of the project, an addendum was prepared in which they concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR.

3. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need. (Findings required by Government Code Section 65863(b)(2).) The remaining sites in the housing element inventory are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The proposed project does not reduce the density of the site below what was projected in the City’s 5th Cycle housing element; the housing element shows a site capacity of 200 units, whereas 272 units are proposed. However, the proposed project includes only 48 lower income units, whereas the site was projected to contain 200 lower income units. Nonetheless, with the update to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Priority Housing sites in the inventory are adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need in that 1,2421 lower income units have been approved by the City at the remaining housing element sites (Vallco Shopping District, Marina Plaza, the Hamptons, and the Barry Swenson site), well in excess of the 563 units that must be accommodated to meet the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The City has approved a total of 3,2092 units on these four sites, also well in excess of the City’s allocation of 1,064 units to meet its total share of the regional housing need.
1 Consisting of the following lower income units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 1,201 units; Veranda affordable housing (Barry Swenson site), 18 units; Marina Plaza, 16 units; Hamptons, 7 units net. 2 Consisting of the following total units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 2,402 units; Veranda (Barry Swenson site), 19 units; Marina Plaza, 188 units; Hamptons, 600 net new units. 406
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
406 of 761

4. The applicant has requested a density bonus. Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.56.070, before approving an application that includes a request for density bonus, incentive, parking reduction and/or waiver, the decision-making body shall make the following findings, as applicable:
a) A finding that the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any incentives, parking reductions or waivers requested.

The application is for a density bonus project that provides for 20.5% of its base density as Below Market Rate Housing. Because 12% of the base units on-site will be available to Very Low Income seniors, the project is eligible for a 38.75 density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and up to two (2) incentives/concessions. b) A finding that the requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions based upon the documentation provided by the applicant and the findings of the peer reviewer, if incentive(s) or concession(s) are requested (other than mixed use development).

Consolidation of BMR Units: On August 19, 2020, the City Council approved a concession to consolidate all BMR units in Building 2, rather than dispersing them throughout Building 1 and the Townhouse/Rowhouse portion.

Reduction in Ground Floor Retail: In December 2021, the City Council approved a Heart of the City Exception to allow a reduced frontage along Stevens Creek to have retail uses (17,600 square feet of retail at the ground floor.) Since the project is eligible for two state density bonus law incentives and concessions, due to the amount of affordable housing provided with the project, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to further reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 1. The currently approved retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create a more efficient building design for the applicant. The applicant proposes to do this by locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than the previously approved, more expensive-to-build basement or upper-level building locations.
c) If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all requirements included Section 19.56.030C have been met.

The density bonus is not based on the donation of land, so the finding is not applicable. d) If the density bonus is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (D) have been met.

The density bonus is not based on the inclusion of a childcare facility, so the finding is not applicable.
407
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
407 of 761
e) If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, a finding that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (E) have been met.

The density bonus is not based on a condominium conversion, so the finding is not applicable.
f) If the incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.40 (B) (2) have been met.

While the project is a mixed-use development, the density bonus is not based on the mixedused development as an incentive, so the finding is not applicable. g) If a waiver is requested, a finding that that the development standards for which the waivers are requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives or concessions permitted.

Height and Slope Setback Waivers: On August 19, 2020, the City Council found that applying the height and slope setback limitations to Buildings 1 & 2 would physically preclude the project by: (a) decreasing the amount of proposed open space and landscaped areas below what is otherwise required by the City; (b) reducing the average size of senior units; (c) reducing commercial ceiling heights; (d) decreasing above-ground parking and increasing underground parking. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would not increase the previously approved Height and Slope Setback waivers since the height of the proposed building is lower and therefore, the waiver is reduced. h) If a reduction in off-street parking standards for an eligible housing development is requested, a finding that all the applicable requirements in Section 19.56.040.C have been met. (The project is eligible to provide 0.5 space per bedroom, which requires at least 11% very low income or 20% low income units; within one-half mile of a Major Transit Stop; and unobstructed Access to the Major Transit Stop.) The applicant is no longer requesting a reduction in off-street parking standards pursuant to State Density Bonus law.

5. Since the applicable findings required above can be made, the decision-making body may deny an application for a waiver only if one of the following written findings as applicable to each type of application, supported by substantial evidence:
a) That the incentive or concession, or waiver would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or There are no affected Historic Resources in the vicinity. 408
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
408 of 761
b) That the incentive, concession or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the residential project unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential project was deemed complete; or
As evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the First Addendum to the EIR, there are no significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential Project was deemed complete.
c) That the incentive, concession or waiver is contrary to state or federal law.

The requested waivers are not contrary to state or federal law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter and the Addendum, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 7 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby:

1. Determines that the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and

2. Adopts the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project; and

3. Approves the application for a Modification to the Development Permit, Application No. M-2024-003; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. M-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April X, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 409
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
409 of 761
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT AND PRIOR APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file no. ASA-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval. The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TR-2018-22, TM-2018- 03, TM-2021-002, DP-2018-05, U-2019-03, EXC-2019-03, EA-2018-04, EXC-2021-003, ASA-2021-007, and M-2021-003 shall be applicable to this approval unless in conflict with the conditions of approval of this resolution.

4. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
Due to the reduction in retail commercial square footage in the development, 13,600 square feet of commercial allocation is returned to the available commercial allocation city-wide.

5. PARKING MODIFICATION
The applicant will work with Staff to supply a further 20 parking spaces dispersed within the Building 1 parcel to accommodate the employees, guests, and residents of the assisted living facility (including memory care).

6. PARKING SPACE SIGNAGE
All spaces within the development shall be marked to identify:
a. Parking for retail use restricted to retail use during the hours of operation of the business
b. Parking for Residential Building 2 for exclusive use c. Parking for Townhomes for exclusive use
d. Parking for Residential Building 1 for exclusive use for employees, residents and guests

7. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold 410 CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
410 of 761
harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary 411
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
411 of 761
by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.

8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT

1. PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE
Prior to building permit issuance, the project is subject to payment of park fees in-lieu of park land dedication under the City’s Park Land Dedication Fee (Chapter 13.08 and Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) for the 13 new dwelling units. The current fee is $30,000 per unit and may be subject to modifications per the City’s annual property assessment and latest fee schedule adjustment.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY

FIRE DEPARTMENT

1. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE
Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further requirements.

2. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED
412
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
412 of 761
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.

NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s)

3. STANDPIPES REQUIRED
Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved. Standpipes shall be manual wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection shall be in accordance with Chapter 32. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47.

CFC Sec. 905

4. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED
Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 6500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C.

See approved hydrant spotting plan pc#20-4568

5. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7

6. REQUIRED FIRE DEPT. ACCESS
413
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
413 of 761
Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. 2.

Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.

7. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED
Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 42 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1.

8. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. cul-de-sac. CFC Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.

9. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS

1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3.

Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official.

10. TURN RADIUS (CIRCULATING):
414
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
414 of 761
The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends.

11. TIMING OF INSTALLATION
When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 CFC Sec. 501.4

12. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS
Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72.

13. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY
All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33

14. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response.

Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1

15. FIRE LANES REQUIRED
The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required circulating access roadways and 60 feet where aerial access is required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.
415
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
415 of 761
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this Xth day of May 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Date
416
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
416 of 761
1 J. ABRAMS LAW, P.C.
538 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Jim Abrams
[email protected]
(415) 999-4402

VIA E-EMAIL
June 18, 2024
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1
Dear Mr. Martire:

This firm represents the project sponsor of the “Building 1” development (“Building 1”) within the Westport Cupertino project (the “Project”). This letter responds to your request for an explanation of the legal justifications authorizing the following modifications to the Building 1 approvals issued by the City Council on December 7, 2021:
• Modify the approved senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units • Eliminate the basement-level parking garage;
• Reduce the ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet; and • Waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee.

Though not discussed at length herein, we underscore that each of the above modifications are being pursued to make the construction of Building 1 and the overall approved Project financeable. Development of Building 1 is currently not financeable due to challenging capital market conditions, inflated construction costs, shifts in market demand, and expensive design elements in the currently approved design of Building 1. We respectfully submit that prompt processing of the modifications would further the goals of the City’s pending draft Housing Element, promote the use of the density bonus consistent with state law, reduce impact fees that constrain the production of housing, and streamline application processing. 417
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
417 of 761
2 Allowing Range of Dwelling Unit Density
The Project’s records and approvals reflect that Cupertino’s General Plan and Zoning Code permit a maximum residential density on the site (that is, the site’s “base density”) of 237 units.1 Twenty-nine units (or 12% of the base density units) are designated as affordable to very low income households.2 Under the state density bonus law, this means the Project is eligible for a density bonus of up 38.75% and could contain up to 329 units.3 As currently approved, the Project includes 88 dwelling units in townhomes, 48 total affordable units in Building 2, and 123 dwelling units in Building 1, well below maximum permitted density under the state density bonus law.
4 As there are no proposed changes to the Project’s
townhome program or the Project’s on-site affordable program in Building 2, this means Building 1 is eligible to contain up to 193 units (237 base density units multiplied by 1.3875, less the 88 townhome units and 48 on-site affordable units).

The project sponsor respectfully requests that the City Council modify the Project approvals to permit the final design of Building 1 to contain 136 dwelling units (this would be in addition to the 35 non-residential memory care units). The project sponsor will submit plans demonstrating that the increase in dwelling units would not require any increase to the approved height and bulk of Building 1. Instead, the unit count increase would be accommodated through floor plan modifications and minor façade alterations necessary to include additional balconies. Further, the submitted plans will demonstrate that the increase to 136 dwelling units would not require additional state density bonus law waivers or concessions. For example, the design of Building 1 with 136 dwelling units would satisfy increased open space requirements, along with other Code requirements associated with the increased unit count.

The proposal would allow less than an 11% increase in dwelling unit count over the currently approved 123-unit count. This is well under the Project’s eligible 38.75% density bonus under the state density bonus law.

Elimination of Subsurface Basement Garage Level
After the 2021 City Council approval of the current Building 1 design and program, the state enacted AB-2097 (which prohibits cities from imposing minimum parking requirements on residential, commercial, and other development projects that are located within one-half mile of public transit.5 The Project’s approvals reflect that the Project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.6
1 See Figure 2 of the Staff Report for the City Council’s August 18, 2020 meeting. 2 An additional 19 units (8% of the base density units) are designated affordable to low-income households. 3 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65915(f)(2). 4 The project also includes 35 memory care units; however, the Project’s approval record clearly reflects that these units are not considered dwelling units by the City and are instead non-residential. 5 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2. 6 See page 25 of the Staff Report for the City Council’s August 18, 2020 and December 7, 2021 meetings. 418
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
418 of 761
3 While AB-2097 allows cities to impose minimum parking requirements under certain, limited circumstances,
7 the City cannot apply this exemption because more than 20% of its units are dedicated to very low- and low-income households and/or the elderly.8 As such, the project sponsor is eligible to invoke AB-2097 to eliminate required parking minimums.

The below-grade parking garage level in Building 1 was included solely for purposes of addressing the otherwise applicable minimum parking required by Cupertino. The project sponsor respectfully elects under AB-2097 to eliminate the basement level and associated parking. No change to Building 1’s current surface parking is proposed, which is permitted under AB-2097 as voluntarily included.

Reduction in Ground Floor Retail
The 2021 Heart of the City Exception approval for Building 1 requires 17,600 square feet of retail.
9 Since 2021, the retail program has proven detrimental to the financial feasibility of Building 1 and thereby to completing the sitewide Project improvements associated with Building 1. This is because the current amount of retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create significantly more efficient building design, achieved by locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than current, more expensive-to-build basement or upper-level building locations.

The Project’s approvals make clear that the Project only uses one of the two state density bonus law incentives and concessions for which it is eligible.10 The project sponsor now requests to use the second available incentive and concession to reduce required ground floor retail in Building

1. The cost-reduction rationale for modifying the otherwise applicable ground floor retail requirements for Building 1 meets the requirement that state density bonus law concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reduction.11 The successful construction of Building 1 is closely tied to the ability of the Building 2 operator to finance affordable housing costs, because, when completed, the users of Building 1 will pay for a share of on-going site maintenance costs of shared infrastructure with the Building 2 operator. Unless the financial feasibility of Building 1 is enhanced through the requested concession, Building 1 will not be constructed, and all of these costs will fall on the affordable housing at Building 2. 7 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2(b). 8 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2(c)(1). 9 See Resolution No. 21-117. 10 See City Council Resolution Nos. 20-106 & 21-118. We note that these resolutions contain a condition of approval that purports to “waive” any future claim of the project sponsor to receive the second concession for which it is eligible under state law. The project sponsor would eliminate this condition through a revised application to be approved by the City Council along with the other design and program changes described herein; however, we note that nothing in the density bonus law or other state laws (including the Housing Accountability Act) support that the City may condition project approval upon an applicant’s permanent waiver of state law rights and benefits. Instead, we respectfully submit that a court and/or the state Housing and Community Development Housing Accountability Unit would find such a condition unlawful and unenforceable under state law. 11 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65915(k)(1). 419
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
419 of 761
4 Credit Against Park Land Dedication Fee
At the revised 136-unit count, Building 1 would be required to pay approximately $4,080,000 ($30,000 per senior citizen housing development unit per City Council Resolution No. 23-094) under the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee. The project sponsor respectfully requests that the City Council waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee ordinance to help facilitate the implementation of Building 1 and completion of the Project. We believe that two important factors specific to the Building 1 development support this waiver.

First, the development of Building 1 includes new pedestrian walkways connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. The construction of the walkways is not strictly required by the City’s Zoning Code; however, will improve pedestrian circulation in the area, including between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Cupertino Memorial Park.

Second, while senior citizen housing developments are subject to a lesser impact fee than general population housing projects, the project sponsor respectfully asserts that residents of the senior housing units in Building 1 cannot reasonably be anticipated to generate a material demand on city park lands and instead are more reasonably anticipated to use the open space amenities included in Building 1 and its publicly accessible, privately maintained Central Green.

The November 2023 draft of the Cupertino Housing Element expressly requires the City to explore revising its Park Land Dedication Fee, including a specific reference to allowing credits for privately owned and maintained public open spaces and other pedestrian connections and trails. The Housing Element states that the objective of this revision would be to, among other things, facilitate a substantial amount of lower-income, moderate-income, and above moderateincome housing, such as the Project and its Building 1. 12 Though the draft Housing Element provides that the City would have until June 2026 to complete the review and revision process, the project sponsor respectfully submits that waiving application of the Park Land Dedication Fee to the Building 1 more immediately advance the City’s goals, while still providing the City with the complete set of publicly accessible, privately maintained green spaces in the Project, as well as enhanced pedestrian circulation, all maintained at no on-going cost to the City.

Sincerely,
Jim Abrams
12 See Strategy HE-2.3.9 in November 2023 Draft Housing Element. 420
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
420 of 761
December 2024 | Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377
Westport Mixed-Use Project
Environmental Impact Report
Addendum No. 1
City of Cupertino
Prepared for:

City of Cupertino
Contact: Gian Martire, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino | Community Development
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
(408) 777-3319
[email protected]
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Terri McCracken, Principal
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
(510) 848-3815
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
421
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
421 of 761
.
422
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
422 of 761
PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
Introduction and Purpose..............................................................................................................1-1 Standard for Preparation of an Addendum ...................................................................................2-1 Project Description........................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 OVERVIEW AND SETTING ................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 APPROVED PROJECT.........................................................................................................3-3

3.3 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT........................................................................................3-4 Environmental Analysis..................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 AIR QUALITY .....................................................................................................................4-3

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................4-6

4.3 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................4-9

4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................................4-12

4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.......................................................................................4-14

4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................4-16

4.7 NOISE .............................................................................................................................4-18

4.8 TRANSPORTATION ..........................................................................................................4-21

4.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................4-24 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT........................................................................5-1

5.2 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES...................................................................5-1

5.3 NEW INFORMATION.........................................................................................................5-1 List of Preparers.............................................................................................................................6-1 423
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
423 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii DECEMBER 2024

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Aerial View of Project Site ................................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-2 Proposed Site Plan for Building 1......................................................................................3-6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Development Analyzed in the Certified EIR...................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2 Changes Following Certification of the EIR....................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-3 Approved Project Compared to Proposed Modified Project ............................................ 3-4 Table 3-4 Units in Building 1 ............................................................................................................ 3-5

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Trip Generation Study
424
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
424 of 761
PLACEWORKS 1-1
Introduction and Purpose
On August 19, 2020, the City of Cupertino certified Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377, and approved the Westport Mixed-Use Project.

This document is an Addendum to the 2020 EIR. For the purposes of this Addendum, the 2020 EIR is considered the “Certified EIR.” Following EIR certification, minor changes were made to the 2020 project (see Table 3-2, Changes Following Certification of the EIR) and approved by City Council. The 2020 project with these changes is considered the “Approved Project.” This document is the first Addendum to the Certified EIR.

Since the time of the Certified EIR and Approved Project, the developer, Related Companies, has proposed modifications to the Approved Project from what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. For the purposes of this Addendum, the proposed modifications to the Approved Project are considered the “proposed Modified Project.” The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed Modified Project.

Based on the information provided in this Addendum, construction and operation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. The proposed modifications to the Approved Project would not result in a substantial change to the project and, therefore, additional environmental review is not necessary. Detailed discussions of the standards for the preparation of an Addendum, the proposed modifications, and the environmental analysis of the proposed modifications are provided in Chapter 2, Standard for Preparation of an Addendum; Chapter 3, Project Description; and Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, respectively.

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Cupertino is the lead agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed action.
425
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
425 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1-2 DECEMBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
426
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
426 of 761
PLACEWORKS 2-1
Standard for Preparation of an Addendum
Pursuant to Section 21166, Subsequent or Supplement Impact Report; Conditions, of CEQA and Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
 Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;  Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
 New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified was adopted shows any of the following:
 The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
 Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
 Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.  Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

Where none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present,1 the lead agency must determine whether to prepare an Addendum or whether no further CEQA documentation is required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[b]). An Addendum is appropriate where some minor technical changes or additions to the previously certified EIR are necessary, but there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration). 1 See also Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which applies the requirements of Section 15162 to supplemental EIRs.
427
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
427 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

STANDARDS FOR PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM
2-2 DECEMBER 2024
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Modified Project. This Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the Modified Project and examines whether, as a result of any changes or new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis pursuant to the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines concerning their applicability to the proposed Modified Project.
428
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
428 of 761
PLACEWORKS 3-1
Project Description
This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed Modified Project as it compares to the Approved Project, including the location, setting, and characteristics of the project site, as well as the proposed project features, approximate construction schedule, and required permits and approvals.

3.1 OVERVIEW AND SETTING

3.1.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The 8.1-acre project site evaluated in the Certified EIR is at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in the central portion of Cupertino, in Santa Clara County. Cupertino is approximately 46 miles southeast of San Francisco and is one of the cities that make up the area commonly known as Silicon Valley. Cupertino is north of the city of Saratoga, east of unincorporated Santa Clara County, south of the city of Sunnyvale, and west of the city of San José. Cupertino also shares a boundary with the city of Los Altos to the north.

Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 280 (I-280), State Route 85 (SR-85), Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus service, and by Caltrain via the Sunnyvale, Lawrence, and Santa Clara Caltrain Stations. The site is within the regional Plan Bay Area VTA City Cores, Corridors, & Station Areas priority development area (PDA). The closest VTA bus stop (Line 81) is at the Mary Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection, approximately 200 feet east of the site, and bus stops are at De Anza College, approximately 1,900 feet to the east at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/South Stelling Road intersection. The nearest Caltrain station to the project site is the Sunnyvale station, which is approximately 4 miles to the north.

The project site is bounded by Mary Avenue to the north and east, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and a SR-85 onramp to the west, off Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project site is surrounded by the Glenbrook Apartments to the north, the Cupertino Senior Center and Cupertino Memorial Park to the east, De Anza College to the south, and residential and industrial land uses to the west beyond SR-85. The project site is directly accessible from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue.

3.1.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Since the time of the Certified EIR and Approved Project, the existing development (Oaks Shopping Center) on the project site has been demolished and each of the components of the Approved Project are developed and occupied except for the proposed Building 1, which is the subject of the proposed Modified Project. The eastern portion of the project site is dedicated to Building 1 and is currently graded and is a vacant dirt lot (see Figure 3-1, Aerial View of Project Site). No other aspects of the site conditions, including the General Plan Land Use designation or zoning district, have changed since the time of the Certified EIR.
429
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
429 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2 DECEMBER 2024
Figure 3-1 Aerial View of Project Site
430
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
430 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-3

3.2 APPROVED PROJECT
The Approved Project includes rowhouses, townhomes, and two residential/retail buildings to be developed across the entire 8.1-acre site. The development that was analyzed in the Certified EIR is shown in Table 3-1, Development Analyzed in the Certified EIR.

TABLE 3-1 DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE CERTIFIED EIR
Building Type Buildings Units
Square Footage
Residential Garage Retail
Common
Open Space
Rowhouses 3 19 34,245 10,840
155 square feet
per unit
Townhomes 13 69 139,850 39,450
Residential-Retail Building 1 1 115 193,500 97,750 17,600 Residential-Retail Building 2 1 39 38,800 n/a 2,400
Total 18 242 406,395 148,040 20,000 37,601
Note: Square footages are rounded up and include residential and parking.

Source: C2K Architecture Inc. , November 2018.

As previously described in Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose, since the time of the Certified EIR, revisions were made to the development shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-2, Changes Following Certification of the EIR, shows the revisions made after EIR certification. As shown, the changes include an increase of 8 units in Building 1 and 9 units in Building 2 for a total increase of 17 units, which represents a 7 percent increase in overall units.

TABLE 3-2 CHANGES FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
Building Type
Project Approved Under Certified EIR Approved Project
Units
Residential
(sf) Retail (sf) Units
Residential
(sf)
Retail
(sf) Difference
Rowhouses and
Townhomes 88 174,095 0 88 174,095 0 0
Building 1
115 + 35 nonresidential
memory units
193,500 17,600
123 + 35 nonresidential
memory units
199,800 17,60
0 +8 units
Building 2 39 38,800 2,400 48 47,760 2,400 +9 units
Total 242 406,395 20,000 259 421,655 20,00
0 +17 units
Notes: sf = square feet
Source: City of Cupertino, 2020.
431
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
431 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-4 DECEMBER 2024

3.3 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
The proposed Modified Project would result in the following changes to Building 1:
 Increase the senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units from 123 dwelling units;  Reduce the ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet from 17,600 square feet;  Eliminate the two subterranean parking levels to be located below Building 1.

Table 3-3, Approved Project Compared to Proposed Modified Project, shows the modifications proposed for Building 1. No changes are proposed to the landscaping, access and circulation, bird safe design, or utilities connections. Thus, this Addendum includes an evaluation of the potential impacts associated with the differences shown in Table 3-3. The proposed Modified Project is shown on Figure 3-2, Proposed Site Plan for Building 1.

TABLE 3-3 APPROVED PROJECT COMPARED TO PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT Building 1 Only Approved Project Proposed Modified Project Difference between Approved and
Proposed Modified Project
Residential 123 senior living units
35 memory care units
136 senior living units
35 memory care units
+ 13 senior living units
Retail 17,600 sf 4,000 sf - 13,600 sf
Vehicular Parking Spaces 191 0 -191
Entire Project Site
Open Space 37,601 sf 47,780 sf +10,179 sf
Notes: sf = square feet
Source: Related Companies. (project applicant), April 2024

3.3.1 RESIDENTIAL
The 117,303-square-foot building would be six stories tall with an overall height of 78 feet, 8 inches. This would be 8 feet and 8 inches taller than what was included in the Approved Project, but still within the allowable height of 80 feet with the Density Bonus. There would be a total of 171 units (136 senior living units and 35 memory care units). Of the 136 senior living units, 27 would be studios, 79 would be one bedroom, and 30 would be two bedrooms, as shown in Table 3-4, Units in Building 1. 432
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
432 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-5
TABLE 3-4 UNITS IN BUILDING 1
Level Gross Area (SF)
Studio
530 SF
1 Bedroom
710 SF
2 Bedroom
1,110 SF
Memory
Care
Total
Units
6 27,562 0 11 5 0 16
5 34,979 9 21 7 0 37
4 34,709 9 21 7 0 37
3 34,716 9 21 7 0 37
2 35,742 0 5 4 35 44
1 27,728 0 0 0 0 0
Total 195,253 27 79 30 35 171
Notes: SF= square feet
Source: Related Companies. (project applicant), April 2024.

Building 1 would also include residential facilities including a memory care outdoor terrace on the second level; communal terrace on the sixth level; and pool/wellness center/gym on the ground level, all for resident use only; and a dining facility on the ground level, for use by residents and their guests only.

3.3.2 RETAIL
The proposed Modified Project includes modifications to the retail component on the ground level of Building 1. Building 1 would have 4,000 square feet of retail space compared to the 17,600 square feet under the Approved Project. There would be 2,400 square feet on the southwest corner of Building 1 along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 1,600 square feet would be on the southeast corner of Building 1 at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. At-grade parking for these retail uses would be provided along Mary Avenue. There would be no subterranean parking garage as originally described under the Approved Project.

3.3.3 VEHICULAR PARKING
The proposed Modified Project would not include the subterranean parking garage under Building 1 but otherwise would not change access and circulation as is described under the Approved Project. All parking would be provided at grade. Residents and visitors of Building 1 would be provided with valet parking and staff parking would be coordinated off-site. Access to Building 1 would be from Mary Avenue to the north and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south.

3.3.4 OPEN SPACE
Private open space areas would be provided for each residential unit either as a balcony or patio. Building 1 would include private balconies that range in size from 60 to 132 square feet per unit. Common open space areas would be provided to residents of Building 1 throughout the project site, including the central green space. The proposed Modified Project would include 47,789 square feet of common open space, an increase of 10,188 square feet of total project site open space from the Approved Project. 433
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
433 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-6 DECEMBER 2024

Figure 3-2 Proposed Site Plan for Building 1

434
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
434 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-7

3.3.5 CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed Modified Project would occur over an approximately 16-month period and is anticipated to be completed by the year 2027. Because the project site is currently graded, no demolition or haul of materials would occur.

3.3.6 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
The proposed Modified Project would add 13 additional units to Building 1 compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, based on an average household size of 2.94 persons,2 the proposed Modified Project would generate about 38 new residents. The proposed Modified Project would decrease retail space by 13,600 square feet compared to the Approved Project. Using the generation rates applied in the General Plan EIR,
3 of 450 square feet of commercial space per employee, the proposed Modified Project would generate 30 fewer employees for the proposed retail uses.4 It is anticipated that future residents and employees would be drawn largely from Cupertino and other communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.

3.3.7 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Following the approval of this Addendum and the proposed Modified Project, the following discretionary permits and approvals from the City would be required:
 Development Permit
 Architectural and Site Approval Permit
 Use Permit

2 Population is calculated by applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household 3 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, (December 2014) and approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007 (October 2015).
4 17,600 square feet of retail divided by 450 square feet per employee equals 39 employees for the Approved Project. 4,000 square feet of retail divided by 450 square feet per employee equals 9 employees. 435
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
435 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8 DECEMBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
436
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
436 of 761
PLACEWORKS 4-1
Environmental Analysis
As previously described in Chapter 2, Standard for Preparation of an Addendum, this Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 to determine whether implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in any new impacts or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. As described in the Certified EIR, due to the proposed project’s location in an urbanized setting and a qualified infill site in a Transit Priority Area (TPA), the project would not have a significant effect on agriculture, forestry, mineral resources, or aesthetics. It was determined through the preparation of an Initial Study that development of the Approved Project would also not result in significant environmental impacts for the listed environmental issues and these issues were not evaluated further in the Certified EIR. The following provides an explanation of why the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts in these topics.  Energy. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would involve the same energy-conserving features of the Approved Project, would be on the same site, and would have less energy demand by eliminating the subterranean parking levels.
 Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and general footprint as that of the Approved Project and associated impacts to groundwater recharge would be similar under either scenario. The same regulatory setting as that of the Approved Project applies to the proposed Modified Project and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans identified in the Certified EIR would ensure that water quality standards would not be violated. The proposed Modified Project would be connected to the same municipal water supplies and would generate less water demand due to the elimination of the subterranean parking component.  Land Use and Planning. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and general footprint as Building 1 as that of the Approved Project and would include the same land uses.

The proposed Modified Project would remain consistent with existing land use and zoning and the site’s Density Bonus pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus.

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project, same as the Approved Project, would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.  Population and Housing. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and same general footprint as the Approved Project and would result in about the same percentage of population growth with 13 additional senior living units (38 additional residents).  Public Services. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site, include the same land uses, and would generally generate the same population growth (38 additional residents and 30 fewer employees) as the Approved Project.
437
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
437 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-2 DECEMBER 2024
 Recreation. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site near existing parks and provide the same facilities as the Approved Project, would roughly generate the same population growth (38 additional residents and 30 fewer employees). Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would create the need for new or improved recreational facilities, which could cause an environmental impact.
 Wildfire. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site as the Approved Project and not in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones.

Accordingly, this Addendum only considers the extent to which the proposed modifications could result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts; it does not reevaluate impacts that would remain consistent with the analysis in the Certified EIR. The environmental topic areas analyzed in the Certified EIR include:
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Noise
 Transportation
 Utilities and Service Systems
The sections below provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project and are organized to correspond with the standards of significance in the Certified EIR, consistent with Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the CEQA Guidelines. Because the Initial Study determined that construction and operation of the Approved Project would not result in significant environmental impacts for some of the environmental checklist questions, the topics are presented as “Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study,” and “Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR.” Each section contains a summary of the findings of the evaluation, organized into the following columns:
 Level of Impact in the Certified EIR presents the level of significance identified for the project analyzed in the Certified EIR, using the following acronyms:
 NI = No Impact. For these topics, there is no adverse effect on the environment.  LTS = Less than Significant. These effects are noticeable but do not exceed established or defined thresholds, and no mitigation is required.
 LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation. For these circumstances, an established or defined threshold would be exceeded, and a significant impact would occur; mitigation is required and would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.  Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project presents the level of significance identified for the proposed Modified Project based on the evaluation in this Addendum, using the following categories:
 New Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Modified Project would have a noticeable but less-than-significant effect on the environment that was not identified in the Certified EIR.  Same Impact as Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project would create the same level of impact identified in the Certified EIR.
438
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
438 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-3
 Less Impact than in Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project would create a noticeable effect on the environment, with a lesser level of impact than was identified in the Certified EIR.  Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project. The proposed Modified Project would not have the potential to create an impact on an environmental topic that was evaluated in the Certified EIR.

4.1 AIR QUALITY
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? LTS X
AQ-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standards?

LTS/M X
AQ-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? LTS X
AQ-4: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic of other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial amount of people has been screened out from further evaluation in this Addendum because the type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., 439
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
439 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-4 DECEMBER 2024
auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Residential and retail uses are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.

Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
AQ-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to conflicting with or obstructing the applicable air quality plan (2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) based on consistency with the General Plan’s land use designation and zoning district for the site, as well as the location within a PDA and a TPA. The proposed Modified Project would not change the location, nor the General Plan land use designation and zoning district of the project site. Additionally, the Approved Project was not considered a regionally significant project that would affect regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and warrant intergovernmental review by Association Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), nor would it exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) emissions thresholds. The proposed Modified Project, with minor changes to the residential units and nonresidential space, is not significant enough to change these findings. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

AQ-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation during the construction phase and less than significant during operation for impacts associated with an increase in criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The site has already been graded in preparation for construction of the Approved Project, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project, so the impact due to fugitive dust would be lessened for the remainder of the construction activities. The Approved Project would be required to comply with the BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures as described in Mitigation Measure AQ-2 in the Certified EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has been replaced by compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1), which requires the project applicant to implement the BAAQMD Basic Control Measures included in the latest version of BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, to control fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter [PM2.5 and PM10]) during demolition, ground-disturbing activities, and/or construction.

The project applicant shall include these measures in the applicable construction documents, prior to issuance of the first permit. As a result, the proposed Modified Project must control fugitive dust during construction in accordance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1) and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 as presented in the Certified EIR is no longer warranted. BAAQMD considers all impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from construction to be less than significant with implementation of BAAQMD’s best management practices. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to constructionrelated fugitive dust.

Operational emissions for residential developments are typically generated from mobile sources (burning of fossil fuels in cars); energy sources (cooling, heating, and cooking); and area sources (landscape 440
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
440 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-5
equipment and household products). The Certified EIR found that none of the emission sources analyzed would create pollutant levels exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds under the Approved Project. The proposed Modified Project would include the same types of uses as the Approved Project and would eliminate the subterranean parking for residents and guests of Building 1. The residents and visitors would rely on valet parking. This would decrease the mobile source emissions estimated under the Approved Project. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum). 5 The number of residential units in Building 1
under the proposed Modified Project would increase by 8 percent, though retail space would decrease by 30 percent. Overall, this would decrease the energy source and area source emissions under the proposed Modified Project. As mobile source emissions would generate the majority of increases in longterm criteria air pollutants, the decrease in daily vehicle trips due to the loss of parking would result in a decrease in operation-related emissions as well. As a result, like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would not exceed the BAAQMD regional significance threshold. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the operational air quality impacts identified in the Certified EIR.

AQ-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact associated with construction- and operational-related health risks (i.e., exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations). Construction-related activities of the Approved Project would result in emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., demolition, clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. The Certified EIR found that the maximum concentration of PM2.5 during construction of the Approved Project was 0.011 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3 ), which is below the
BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3
. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project construction was 2.23 per million based on an annual PM10 concentration of 0.012 μg/m3 . Non-cancer
hazards for DPM was below the BAAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001 and an acute hazard index of 0.01. Construction of the proposed Modified Project would reduce the amount of DPM emissions, since site grading is complete and the subterranean parking garage is not included in the proposed Modified Project. The Certified EIR found that operation of the Approved Project would not be a source of toxic air contaminants. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

AQ-4: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with air quality under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project is all development within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants and basinwide projections of emissions. There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
5 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 441
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
441 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-6 DECEMBER 2024

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type. NI X
Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means.

LTS X
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their
wildlife corridors, or nursery sites.

LTS X
Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal
population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species.

LTS/M X
BIO-2: Conflict with any local ordinances or policies
protecting biological resources. LTS/M X
BIO-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. 442
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
442 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-7
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding sensitive habitat, wetlands, migratory movement, and an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan have been screened out from further evaluation since the project site and surrounding area are urbanized and support roadways, structures, other impervious surfaces, and ornamental landscaping. The project site is bound by roadways on all sides and property beyond the roadways is developed with residential, senior services, and educational land uses. Thus, there is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type or State or federally protected wetlands on the project site. The site contains no creeks or aquatic habitat that would support fish, and development would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurseries.

No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan includes the project site. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
BIO-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to having a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. Though there are no known occurrences of special-status plant or animal species and no suitable habitat for such species on the project site, there is a possibility that birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code could nest in trees and other landscaping near the project site that could be disturbed during construction of Building 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the Certified EIR would require preconstruction surveys and protective measures for active nests. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), which requires the project applicant to avoid nesting birds during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance and CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(2), which requires the project applicant to avoid special-status roosting bats during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance.

Additionally, the Approved Project included designs to minimize the risk of bird collisions through the use of bird-safe design for window treatments, rooftop equipment, and night-time lighting. The applicant has committed to implementing bird-safe design measures in the new buildings, which would further address the low risk of collision.

Further, bat species found in the Cupertino vicinity may forage and occasionally roost in the site vicinity, but suitable habitat conditions for maternity roots is absent from the project site. The potential for any special-status bat species to be present on the site is considered highly remote, given the urbanization of the site vicinity and intensity of human activity, which typically discourages possible occupation by specialstatus bats.

Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would adhere to CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), which outlines steps to avoid disturbance or removal of bird nests protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code and special-status bats. Further, the project site would 443
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
443 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-8 DECEMBER 2024
remain the same, is already graded, and would have similar construction activities as under the Approved Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to having a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.

BIO-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to local ordinances and policies protecting biological resources. The Approved Project would not conflict with any relevant goals and policies in the General Plan related to the protection of biological resources. CMC Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Ordinance, provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and maintenance of trees of certain species and sizes. The Certified EIR described 14 trees that were proposed for removal under the Approved Project that qualified as Specimen trees pursuant to the Protected Trees Ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the Certified EIR would ensure the project complies with the City of Cupertino’s Protected Trees Ordinance.

The proposed Modified Project would also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure BIO-2; however, since the site is already graded, the removal of these required trees has already occurred. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to local ordinances and policies protecting biological resources.

BIO-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated with biological resources under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands. Cumulative development projects within the city are in urbanized areas of the city and contain limited biological resource value.

Redevelopment and infill projects, including those in built-out urban areas, would remove vegetation that could be used for nesting by birds protected under various laws and would remove buildings and trees that could be used for roosting by sensitive bat species. However, these development projects would be required to follow applicable local and State regulations and impacts to nesting birds and the removal of protected trees, and for those in Cupertino, would be required to comply with CMC Section

17.04.050(D)(1) and CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(2). There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting since the certification of the Certified EIR and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development on the same project site. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
444
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
444 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-9

4.3 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified
Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.

LTS X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
CULT-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

LTS/M X
CULT-2: Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? LTS X
CULT-3: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
 Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
 A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section
5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead
agency shall consider the significance to a California
Native American tribe.

LTS/M X
CULT-4: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation

Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. 445
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
445 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-10 DECEMBER 2024
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic regarding historic resources has been screened out from further evaluation since there are no local, State, or federally recognized historic properties on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. The historical building (Le Petit Trianon) at 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard is within 1 mile of the project site; however, construction of the Approved Project would not affect this structure. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
CULT-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to archaeological resources. The Certified EIR referenced the General Plan EIR and stated that the cultural resources study did not identify any known archaeological deposits on the project site.6 The project site and the surrounding area is already developed, though it could still contain subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 in the Certified EIR would provide protection protocols should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered during ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure CULT1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1), Protect Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, which contains cultural resources permit requirements that are necessary to protect archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources. Same as Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the CMC requirements include providing written verification to the City that contractors and construction crews have been notified of basic archaeological site indicators, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources, laws pertaining to these resources, and procedures for protecting cultural and tribal cultural resources.

Since the time of the Certified EIR, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded and most of the construction is complete. The discovery of archaeological resources during ground disturbance is less likely to occur under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project. Further, the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) (i.e., Mitigation Measure CULT-1), which outlines what to do should an archaeology resource be discovered.

Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to archaeological resources.

CULT-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to disturbing human remains. The Certified EIR found that there are no known human remains on the project site; however, the potential to unearth unknown remains during ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the proposed project could occur. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of 6 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. 446
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
446 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-11
human remains. As previously described, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded and most of the construction is complete with the exception of Building 1. The discovery of human remains during ground disturbance is less likely to occur at this remaining location under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to disturbing human remains.

CULT-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to tribal cultural resources. As described under Impact CULT-1 and Impact CULT-2, no known archaeological resources, ethnographic sites, or Native American remains are located on the project site; however, the project site could contain undiscovered subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) would provide protection protocols should resources with traditional or cultural significance to Native American or other descendant communities cultural resources be discovered during ground disturbance. As previously described, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded, and most of the construction is complete with the exception of Building 1. The discovery of tribal cultural resources during ground disturbance is less likely to occur under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project.

Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to tribal cultural resources.

CULT-4: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with cultural and tribal cultural resources under the Approved Project. Impacts to cultural resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The significance of the impacts would depend largely on what, if any, cultural resources occur on or near the sites of related projects that are developed in the cumulative setting. Through compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) (i.e., Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-3), the Approved Project would not be cumulatively considerable. There have not been significant changes to the project site or cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less ground disturbance and less development than evaluated in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project.

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 447
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
447 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-12 DECEMBER 2024

4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
 Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault.
 Strong seismic ground shaking.
 Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
 Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards.

NI X
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. LTS X Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

LTS X
Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

LTS X
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GEO-1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature.

LTS/M X
GEO-2: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. 448
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
448 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-13
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding risk of loss, injury, or death involving ground shaking and liquefaction, substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, unstable soil, expansive soil, and alternative wastewater disposal systems have been screened out from further evaluation because development on the project site is subject to compliance with State and City building requirements and CMC Section 16.08.110, which requires the preparation and submittal of Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. Further, the project site is not in a seismically induced liquefaction hazard zone and development of the Approved Project would not require the construction or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GEO-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The certified EIR found that the geology and soils on the project site are common throughout the city and region and are not considered to be unique. Further, no paleontological resources have been identified within the project site. However, ground-disturbing construction associated with development of the Approved Project, specifically the excavation of the subterranean parking facilities, could cause damage to, or destruction of, unique paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would protect paleontological resources if they are discovered during ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(H), Paleontological Resources Permit Requirements, which provides protocols to protect paleontological resources during construction that the project applicant must adhere to in the event that there is a find. The proposed Modified Project would remove the subterranean parking garage from the project, thus reducing ground-disturbing activities and lessening the likelihood that paleontological resources are discovered during construction of Building 1. Further, since the time of the Certified EIR, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded, and most of the construction is complete. The proposed Modified Project would require minimal ground disturbance, and the project site location has not changed. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to paleontological resources.

GEO-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated with geology and soils under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project considers the buildout of the city and the region. Impacts to paleontological resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis and CMC Section 17.04.050(H) would be adhered to.

There have not been significant changes to the project site or cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less ground disturbance and less development than evaluated in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 449
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
449 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-14 DECEMBER 2024

4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
LTS X
GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
LTS X
GHG-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GHG-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to generating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Construction of the Approved Project would result in direct emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) from the operation of construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the project site. The Certified EIR found that emissions from the Approved Project would be 58 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year and would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold.

Construction associated with the proposed Modified Project would use a similar type of construction equipment and transport of materials. The modifications to Building 1 would not alter the overall GHG emissions from construction on the project site, and the subterranean parking garage would not be included in the proposed Modified Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would result in less development and less construction emissions.
450
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
450 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-15
Operational GHG emissions of the Approved Project would result from direct emissions such as projectgenerated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment, and would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would generate 1,843 MTCO2e per year and the previous 71,250-square-foot shopping center on the project site generated 1,484 MTCO2e per year. The Approved Project’s emissions would represent a net increase in GHG emissions of 359 MTCO2e per year that would not exceed the BAAQMD’s screening threshold. The proposed Modified Project would increase residential units in Building 1 by 8 percent, decrease retail space by 30 percent, and eliminate the subterranean parking garage. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum).
7 As a result, there would be a decrease in GHG emissions compared to the Approved Project and therefore would not increase emissions beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to generating GHG emissions.

GHG-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with consistency with California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, and the Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Approved Project would be required to achieve the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards, comply with CMC Chapter 16.58, Green Building Ordinance, and would be required to build to LEED or an alternative reference standard and would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan.

Further, because the Approved Project is an infill residential mixed-use development it would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area. Lastly, as an infill redevelopment priority housing development on a designated PDA and TPA, the Approved Project would be consistent with the overall intent of the CAP to support reductions in GHG emissions, and the Approved Project would not conflict with any goals or measures to reduce GHG emissions in the CAP.

The proposed Modified Project would result in less development and continue to be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, and Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) as an infill development project in a PDA and TPA. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to consistency with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

GHG-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with GHG emissions under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project is not confined to a particular air basin since GHG emissions are dispersed worldwide. The impact of the Approved Project is addressed in Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2. There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development. Therefore, the proposed Modified 7 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20. Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 451
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
451 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-16 DECEMBER 2024
Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.

4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.

LTS X
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.

NI X
For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area.

NI X
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.

LTS X
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.

LTS X
HAZ-2: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
LTS X
HAZ-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation 452
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
452 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-17
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment has been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project, a mixed-use commercial and residential development, is not a type of project that would create a hazardous materials threat to the users of the site or the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division would be required through the duration of the construction of the Approved Project. The topics regarding the location of the site on a hazardous materials site and within an airport land use plan have also been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project is not on a hazardous materials site or in an airport land use plan.

The Approved Project would not block roads and would not impede emergency access to surrounding properties or neighborhoods nor is it in a very high fire hazard severity zone in the Local Responsibility Areas of Cupertino or in the General Plan designated Wildland-Urban Interface Area. Thus, the topics regarding interfering with an emergency response plan or risk involving wildland fires have been screened out. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
HAZ-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner to minimize the potential for safety impacts. Further, none of the soils at the project site that were proposed to be excavated for off-site disposal contain elevated concentrations exceeding federal or State hazardous waste levels. Like the Approved Project, construction under the proposed Modified Project would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations regarding the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials. Further, less soil would be exported from the project site since the proposed Modified Project no longer includes the subterranean parking garage. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

HAZ-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to hazardous emissions within 0.25 miles of a school. De Anza College is directly south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, within 140 feet of the project site. In addition, one preschool is within 0.25 miles of the project site. The Certified EIR described that since Impacts HAZ-1 and AQ-3 were both less than significant, there would be no hazardous emissions released near the schools under the Approved Project. 453
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
453 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-18 DECEMBER 2024
The proposed Modified Project would be on the same project site and construction of the proposed Modified Project would not greatly alter construction emissions and would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations regarding the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to emitting hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

HAZ-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the Approved Project. Under the Approved Project, the excavation, hauling, and disposal of potentially contaminated soils would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the city. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include similar construction activities and materials. Thus, the excavation, hauling, and disposal of potentially contaminated soils under the proposed Modified Project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the city.

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.

4.7 NOISE
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
NOISE-1: Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards.

LTS/M X
NOISE-2: Generation of excessive groundborne noise
levels. LTS X
NOISE-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation 454
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
454 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-19
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic regarding the location of the project site near an airport has been screened out from further evaluation since the proposed project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The nearest public airports are San José International Airport, approximately 7 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.5 miles to the northwest. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
NOISE-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation impact with respect to increasing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Sensitive receptors near the project site include residences approximately 90 feet north of the site, the Cupertino Senior Center approximately 80 feet east of the site, and De Anza College approximately 140 feet south of the site, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Certified EIR found that during construction of the Approved Project, the highest noise levels would occur during the grading and demolition phases and would be 75.9 A-weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) during the grading phase and 79.5 dBA Lmax during the demolition phase at the nearest receptor. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 in the Certified EIR would ensure construction noise levels do not exceed the City’s standard of 80 dBA. This includes requiring appropriate work timing, notifications, and noise-reducing measures. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 has been replaced with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2), Manage Noise During Construction, which requires the applicant and contractor to submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the first permit. The Construction Noise Control Plan would demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits based on the type of construction equipment, distance of construction activities from sensitive receptors, site terrain, and other project features.

Construction of the proposed Modified Project would likely use the same equipment and type of construction at the same location. Therefore, noise generated by construction of the proposed Modified Project would likely be the same as the Approved Project; however, the grading and demolition have already been completed and noise from those activities would be less for the proposed Modified Project.

Further, the subterranean parking garage is not included in the proposed Modified Project, so no excavation and soil haul would be required. Thus, impacts would be less than evaluated in the Certified EIR with compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1).

Operational noise issues evaluated in the Certified EIR include vehicle traffic noise as well as stationary source noise (e.g., mechanical equipment, on-site trucks/loading docks). The Certified EIR found that the new trips from the Approved Project would not have a significant impact on traffic noise levels as the increase would be less than 3 dBA. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation 455
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
455 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-20 DECEMBER 2024
Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum). 8 Stationary noise from the
Approved Project would be similar to typical residential, mixed-use development with most noise occurring in the daytime. Noise from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, landscaping maintenance, parking, and truck deliveries would be likely but would not create greater noise levels than currently exist in the vicinity.

The proposed Modified Project would include 13 more senior living units, 13,600 square feet less commercial space resulting in 30 fewer employees, and elimination of the subterranean parking garage, which would reduce traffic noise when compared to the Approved Project. Further, operation of the proposed Modified Project would include similar noise-generating activities, typical of residential development as evaluated in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

NOISE-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to generating excessive groundborne noise levels. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Approved Project would be primarily associated with construction-related activities such as jackhammering and using bulldozers or large trucks. Pile drivers were not included for construction under the Approved Project. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors would be the building 82 feet to the north. Based on typical vibration levels, ground vibration generated by other heavy-duty equipment could reach levels of 0.035 inches per second (in/sec) Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at 82 feet. The use of construction equipment would not result in a groundborne vibration velocity level above the established threshold of 0.20 in/sec PPV.

Further, operation of the Approved Project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no notable sources of vibrational energy associated with the Approved Project, such as heavy industrial machinery, railroad, or subway operations.

Construction of the proposed Modified Project would use the same construction equipment as the Approved Project. Additionally, without the inclusion of the subterranean parking garage, there would be less groundborne vibration during project construction. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

NOISE-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated with noise under the Approved Project. At the time of the Certified EIR, the nearest cumulative project was the Loc-N-Stor project at 10655 Mary Avenue about 0.5 miles to the north. This project was under preliminary review and no construction timeline had been established. With compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1), construction noise levels would not exceed 80 dBA for the surrounding off-site sensitive receptors.

Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include similar construction activities and materials and would implement CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1). Since certification of the Certified EIR, the Loc-N-Stor project still has not begun construction. Even if the Loc-N8 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 456
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
456 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-21
Stor project were to be constructed at a similar time as the proposed Modified Project, it would be considered too far away to cause a cumulative construction noise impact. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.

4.8 TRANSPORTATION
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

LTS X
Result in inadequate emergency access. LTS X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
TRANS-1: Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

LTS X
TRANS-2: Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). LTS X
TRANS-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding an increase in road hazards or inadequate emergency access have been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project, a mixed-use commercial and residential development, would not modify any design features to a public road or introduce a potentially unsafe feature that would increase hazards and access for emergency vehicles would be provided from access points off Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. The circulation pattern on the project site would 457
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
457 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-22 DECEMBER 2024
allow emergency vehicles full access to all internal streets. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
TRANS-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would generate 3 fewer (or negative 3) inbound trips and 50 new outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 4 new inbound and 26 fewer (or negative 26) outbound trips during the PM peak hour. In regard to pedestrian facilities, the Approved Project would be expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the existing sidewalks and crosswalks in the area by 20 percent, so the Approved Project would include an internal sidewalk and bicycle network, in addition to sidewalk modifications along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue.

Thus, the Approved Project would not eliminate or impede any existing pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any of the goals and policies in the City’s Pedestrian Plan. The Approved Project would also install a Class IV separated bikeway on the portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard and a Class I bike path on the western portion of the project site to connect Stevens Creek Boulevard to Mary Avenue. Further, the Approved Project would include a total of 117 bicycle parking spaces and would be consistent with the City’s bike plan. Lastly, the Approved Project would also install a bus stop on the section of Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Mary Avenue and east of the SR-85 northbound ramp and the new transit trips generated by the Approved Project are not expected to create a significant demand in excess of the capacity of the transit service that is currently provided.

The proposed Modified Project only includes modifications to Building 1 and would not impact the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities included under the Approved Project. The subterranean parking garage would not be included in the proposed Modified Project and parking for residents and visitors of Building 1 would be off-site. With respect to generated trips, based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum). 9 As described in Appendix A, the increase in residential units under the proposed Modified Project would increase trip generation for the residential portion by 32 daily trips and the reduction in retail in Building 1 would reduce trip generation by 871 daily trips. Overall, there would be less trips generated by the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicts with policies addressing the circulation network.

TRANS-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The Approved Project is a residential mixed-use development on an infill site recognized as a PDA and TPA by the regional Plan Bay Area. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would produce an approximate annual VMT of 2,662,683 miles, or a daily VMT of 7,295 miles. This would be a reduction of approximately 120,064 miles annually, or 329 miles daily from existing conditions at the time of the Certified EIR.
9 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 458
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
458 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-23
As described in Impact TRANS-1, the proposed Modified Project would increase residential units by 8 percent and decrease retail space by 30 percent. This would generate 839 fewer trips under the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), projects within 0.25 miles of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. On February 16, 2021, the City adopted CMC Chapter 17.08, Evaluation of Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides screening criteria and VMT thresholds for land-use development projects, transportation projects, and other projects pursuant to CEQA. As previously described, the location of the project site meets this criterion. Accordingly, no transportation impacts related to VMT from the proposed Modified Project are presumed. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

TRANS-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with transportation under the Approved Project. Impact TRANS-1 and Impact TRANS-2 in the Certified EIR addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in the city and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts would be the same as those discussed previously and no additional analysis is warranted.

Like the Certified EIR, Impact TRANS-1 and Impact TRANS-2 address cumulative impacts to the transportation network in the city and its surroundings under the proposed Modified Project. Fewer trips would be generated under the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project does not include any changes to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities described in the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
459
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
459 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-24 DECEMBER 2024

4.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Require or result in the construction of new water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects.

LTS X
Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

LTS X
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals.

LTS X
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. LTS X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
UTIL-1: Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.

LTS/M X
UTIL-2: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater
treatment.

LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding the construction of new water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities; insufficient water supplies; and generating solid waste have been screened out from further evaluation. The Approved Project would connect to existing City infrastructure and demand would not exceed existing capacity of the infrastructure. Further, the General Plan EIR considered development in the city through the 2040 buildout horizon and found 460
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
460 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-25
that the buildout of the General Plan would not result in insufficient water supplies or other utilities.10 Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum. The topic regarding regulations related to solid waste has also been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project would be required to follow the City’s CAP and Zero Waste Policy regarding operational waste and CMC Chapter 16.7 regarding construction waste. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
UTIL-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to wastewater capacity. Wastewater would be treated at the San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP). The General Plan EIR found that the estimated wastewater generation from the Approved Project and from other potential projects, as established by the General Plan and other approved projects, is the total capacity needed to serve the General Plan buildout. 11 Thus,
implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 of the Certified EIR would ensure that no building permits shall be issued by the City for the Approved Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 million gallons per day (mgd) through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system and would require the applicant to demonstrate that the Approved Project would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 has been replaced by CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, which includes Utilities and Service Systems Permit Requirements in Section 17.04.050(I) to manage wastewater inflow and infiltration to the sewer system. The proposed Modified Project would increase the residential units of Building 1 by 8 percent but decrease the retail space by 30 percent. Thus, there would a decrease in overall wastewater created by the proposed Modified Project. Further, the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(I) (i.e., Mitigation Measure UTIL-1), which would ensure that modifications to Building 1 would not exceed the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. Accordingly, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to wastewater treatment provider capacity.

UTIL-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with utilities and service systems with respect to wastewater treatment under the Approved Project. Impact UTIL-1 in the Certified EIR addresses cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment since it considers the impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with the citywide wastewater generation and demand and all development in Cupertino is bound to the same treatment allocation contractual limits and contributes to demand on the SJ/SCWPCP wastewater treatment capacity.

Like the Certified EIR, Impact UTIL-1 addresses cumulative impacts to wastewater generation and treatment capacity. Further, less wastewater would be created with the decrease in retail space under the proposed Modified Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
10 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems. 11 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems. 461
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
461 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-26 DECEMBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
462
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
462 of 761
PLACEWORKS 5-1
Conclusion
As summarized in the following sections and for the reasons described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, the City has concluded that the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts not previously identified in the Certified EIR; nor would it result in a substantial increase in the severity of any significant environmental impact previously identified in the Certified EIR.

For these reasons, a subsequent EIR is not required, and an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate CEQA document to address the proposed Modified Project.

5.1 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT
The proposed Modified Project is not a substantial change to the Certified EIR because it is on the same project site as the Approved Project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Certified EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Certified EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

5.2 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES
As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR, would not substantially increase the severity of significant environmental effects identified in the Certified EIR, and thus would not require major revisions to the Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project, therefore, is not substantial and does not require major revisions to the Certified EIR or preparation of a subsequent EIR. In addition, beyond the site preparations and construction to the rest of the Approved Project, the physical conditions of the project site and vicinity have not changed substantially since the certification of the Certified EIR.

5.3 NEW INFORMATION
There has been no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known when the Certified EIR was certified in 2020, that shows that the proposed Modified Project would be expected to result in: (1) new significant environmental effects not identified in the Certified EIR; (2) substantially more severe environmental effects than shown in the Certified EIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible that would in fact be feasible and would 463
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
463 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CONCLUSION
5-2 DECEMBER 2024
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those identified in the Certified EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 464
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
464 of 761
PLACEWORKS 6-1
List of Preparers
City of Cupertino
Gian Martire .................................................................................. Senior Planner, Community Development PlaceWorks
Terri McCracken................................................................................................. Principal, Principal-in-Charge Rachel Goren........................................................................................................Associate, Project Manager Christopher Giamarino................................................................. Associate, Geographic Information System Grant Reddy....................................................................................................................... Graphics Specialist Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Gary Black......................................................................................................................................... President Jonathan Chang................................................................................................................................. Engineer 465
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
465 of 761
THE WESTPORT MIXED - USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1

CITY OF CUPERTINO

LIST OF PREPARERS
6-2 DECEMBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
466
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
466 of 761
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX A

T RI P G E N ER A T I O N S T U D Y
467
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
467 of 761
........................................................................................................................ 468 CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
468 of 761
Memorandum
Date: September 20, 2024
To: Ms. Rachel Goren, PlaceWorks
From: Gary Black, Jonathan Chang
Subject: Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a trip generation study for the proposed assisted living and retail development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California.

The proposed project consists of 136 units for assisted living and 4,000 square feet (s.f.) of retail space. This newly proposed plan will replace a previously approved project with 124 units for assisted living and 20,000 s.f. of retail space.

Project Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the manual entitled Trip Generation, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE). The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development. The ITE trip generation rates for Assisted Living (Land Use 254) and Strip Retail Plaza (Land Use 822) were used for this study.

As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is estimated to generate 839 fewer daily vehicle trips than the previously approved project, with 22 fewer trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 52 fewer trips during the PM peak hour. In conclusion, the new proposed project would generate fewer trips than the previously approved project, so there is no need for additional traffic analysis.

Table 1
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Rate Trips Rate In % In Out Total Rate In % In Out Total Proposed Uses
Assisted Living1 136.0 d.u. 2.60 354 0.18 60% 14 10 24 0.24 39% 13 20 33 Retail2 4.0 ksf 54.45 218 2.36 60% 5 4 9 6.59 50% 13 13 26 Approved Uses
Assisted Living1 124 d.u. 2.60 (322) 0.18 60% (13) (9) (22) 0.24 39% (12) (18) (30) Retail2 20 ksf 54.45 (1,089) 2.36 60% (28) (19) (47) 6.59 50% (66) (66) (132) Net Project Trips -839 -22 -14 -36 -52 -51 -103
d.u. = dwelling unit
ksf = 1,000 square feet
1 2
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
Notes:

Assisted Living (Land Use 254) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021.

Strip Retail Plaza (Land Use 822) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. 469
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
469 of 761
470
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
470 of 761

PROPERTY LINE

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD

MARY AVE

ROWHOUSE

ROWHOUSE

ROWHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

PROPERTY LINE
BLDG 2: BMR

SENIOR LIVING /
RETAIL
BLDG 1: SENIOR LIVING /
RETAIL

BMR SENIOR
LIVING
BMR
SENIOR
LIVING

LOBBY /

OFFICE /
MAIL

LOADING /
TRASH

PARKING
GARAGE
LOBBY

LOBBY LOUNGE

CENTRAL GREEN

CENTRAL GREEN
SITE AREA LEGEND:

BUILDING COVERAGE AREA = 111,997 SF
111,997 / 343,958 = 32.56% NET SITE
HARDSCAPE AREA = 136,582 SF
136,582 / 343,958 = 39.70% NET SITE
LANDSCAPE AREA = 95,378 SF
95,378 / 343,958 = 27.73% NET SITE
NET SITE AREA = 343,958 SF (7.9 Acres)
GROSS AREA RETAIL = 20,000 SF
SURFACE PARKING AREA = 15,577 SF
GROSS SITE AREA = 352,836 SF (8.1 Acres) RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING LOBBIES/ SUPPORT SPACE
RETAIL
6 6
6 6
6 BLDG 1: SENIOR
LIVING / RETAIL 17,405 SF 10,000 SF 92,278 SF 112,392 SF 112,392 / 343,958 = 32.67% NET SITE
137,598 SF
137,598 / 343,958 = 40.00% NET SITE
92,278 / 343,958 = 26.82% NET SITE 7
7 7
On the entitled set this sheet is G206A.

All three Westport parcel site areas were
represented together. This updated sheet reflects
the changes proposed for Building 1 site only. Any
updates from other parcels (Building 2, Townhomes)
are not reflected here.

09.28.2021 137,078 137,078 CENTRAL GREEN
BLDG 1: SENIOR
LIVING / RETAIL 17,600
SITE AREA LEGEND:

BUILDING COVERAGE AREA = 111,997 SF
111,997 / 343,958 = 32.56% NET SITE
HARDSCAPE AREA = 136,582 SF
136,582 / 343,958 = 39.70% NET SITE
LANDSCAPE AREA = 95,378 SF
95,378 / 343,958 = 27.73% NET SITE
NET SITE AREA = 343,958 SF (7.9 Acres)
GROSS AREA RETAIL = 20,000 SF
SURFACE PARKING AREA = 15,577 SF
GROSS SITE AREA = 352,836 SF (8.1 Acres) RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING LOBBIES/ SUPPORT SPACE
RETAIL
6 17,405 SF 10,000 SF 92,278 SF 112,392 SF
112,392 / 343,958 = 32.67% NET SITE
137,598 SF
137,598 / 343,958 = 40.00% NET SITE
92,278 / 343,958 = 26.82% NET SITE
On the entitled set this sheet is G206A.

All three Westport parcel site areas were
represented together. This updated sheet reflects
the changes proposed for Building 1 site only. Any
updates from other parcels (Building 2, Townhomes)
are not reflected here.

11.0'
D
209G GREAS TAL E LOW BIN
A- A
- SIM
A P OLLO MODE L A 1000 S TA TIONARY
HA ND-FED COMPA CTOR (2) TOTA L
1/8" THICK S TE E L DIA MOND TREA D BA CK ING, TY P S E E NOTE 4 120V 15A SE RVICE OUTLE T, S EE NOTE 10
HB
1HR FIRE-RATE D WA LL B Y OTHERS
TY P (S.A .D.) S EE NOTE 3
PP
4C COM Y FL P AC TOR CON TA INERCOM BINED WASTE
PP
4C Y FL C OMP AC TOR C ON TAINER COM BINED RECYC LING
E
T
L
R
E
U
C
C
.

K
P ALLET SEE NOTE9
7'-0" WIDE ROLL-UP DOOR
O C
C
SP
OM
AR E 4C YFL PACTOR C ON TA INER COMBINED RECYC LI NG
3C Y FL LOOSE C ON TA NI ER COMBINED CO MPOST
C
SP
OM
AR
P
E
A
4C YFL CTOR C ON TA INER COMBINED WASTE
FD
3'-0" FIRE

EGRESS DOOR
11'-10"

WELLNESS/GYM/POOL
RETAIL

ADMIN/OFFICE
ADMIN

LOBBY/LOUNGE

MAIN DINING

MAIN KITCHEN

STAFF/BOH
AMENITIES = 17,118 sf BOH/SUPPORT = 9,043 sf

LOBBY/LOUNGE
GROSS AREA RETAIL = 4,000 sf
8 Enhanced Senior and Living Project (Revised) 04.01.2024 8 8
8 BLDG 1
RETAIL

BOH/MECH
471
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
471 of 761
From: Sarah Schueler
To: Gian Martire
Subject: [Urgent] Re: Westport Plan amendments - please review Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:06:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Martire,
I am writing on behalf of the concerned residents of Arroyo Village and Glenbrook Apartments, located near the proposed Westport Senior Living Community. After reviewing the arguments presented by the builder/owner, Jim Abrahms, we would like to express our concerns to the city’s elected officials and sincerely hope that these issues will be taken into consideration.

Overall concerns:

1. Revisions to the Original Agreement: The builder/owner of the Westport Community made several promises to city officials and to nearby residents, committing to the construction of a community that would not negatively impact the City of Cupertino.

However, the builder has since revised the plans multiple times, now proposing a new design that primarily benefits the builder's profits, while disregarding the needs of future residents and the surrounding community. [Further details of these concerns are outlined below.]

2. Rethinking the Lot Ownership: There is a risk that the builder may continue to revise the plans in ways that reduce construction costs, ultimately leaving the city with an abandoned structure. Now is the time for the city to make tough decisions, either by asking the builder to propose alternative solutions or by purchasing the site for more beneficial uses in the future (e.g., a new senior center, daycare facility, or recreational space). Cupertino has limited prime real estate, and it should not be compromised to save money for a builder at the expense of the residents who contribute significantly in taxes.

3. Traffic and Safety Issues: The traffic and crosswalk situation at Mary and Memorial Park is already dangerous for families, children, and the elderly. Vehicles rarely stop, and with the new construction, visibility will be further impaired, making it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians in time and potentially leading to fatal accidents.

Arguments Raised by the Builder
Retail and Garage Concerns:

Lack of Effort in Retail Space Development: The retail space in Building 1 has not been properly promoted, and the placement of benches along that side of the building makes it difficult for potential merchants to envision occupying the space.

Insufficient Parking for Retail Visitors: If the builder does not add more underground 472
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
472 of 761
parking, the existing parking spots will be fully occupied by residents, leaving no space for retail visitors. This lack of designated parking is already a problem, as current parking spots are often filled throughout the day, and there is no additional parking available due to the limited spaces on 85 Entrance and Mary (which only allows permit parking).

Inadequate Parking for Residents: With the proposed increase in units, parking will become even more strained. The current plan provides fewer than 30% of the required parking spaces for residents. This suggests that fewer than 30% of residents will own cars, which is highly unlikely, especially considering that some residents may not have access to nearby transit hubs.

Unkept Promises to Current Residents: Current residents were initially promised underground parking for the next phase of construction. This promise has now been abandoned, creating further frustration for those living in the Westport community.

Arguments Raised by the Builder
Retail and Garage Concerns:

Lack of Effort in Retail Space Development: The retail space in Building 1 has not been properly promoted, and the placement of benches along that side of the building makes it difficult for potential merchants to envision occupying the space. The builder instead uses the building 1 residents as scapegoats to carry the burden of failed retail. (page 3 of Jim Abraham's letter).

Insufficient Parking for Retail Visitors: If the builder does not add more underground parking, the existing parking spots will be fully occupied by residents, leaving no space for retail visitors. This lack of designated parking is already a problem, as current parking spots are often filled throughout the day, and there is no additional parking available due to the limited spaces on 85 Entrance and Mary (which only allows permit parking).

Inadequate Parking for Residents: With the proposed increase in units, parking will become even more strained. The current plan provides fewer than 30% of the required parking spaces for residents. This suggests that fewer than 30% of residents will own cars, which is highly unlikely, especially considering that some residents may not have access to nearby transit hubs.

Unkept Promises to Current Residents: Current residents were initially promised underground parking for the next phase of construction. This promise has now been abandoned, creating further frustration for those living in the Westport community.

Park Land Dedication fee Argument:

Contradiction in the Builder’s Argument: The builder claims that future residents will be able to walk 0.5 miles to a "major public transit hub," yet they argue that these same residents will be unable to walk to the nearby park, which is less than 0.5 miles away. This contradiction suggests that the builder is trying to circumvent the $4M agreement, which would significantly impact both current residents and the city. 473
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
473 of 761
Impact on Existing Residents: Residents of Building 1 regularly utilize nearby facilities, such as the park, senior center, and Quilan Community Center. They also frequently walk their pets in the park. The addition of new residents would put additional strain on these public amenities, including the park and nearby transit options, potentially leading to increased trash and other environmental impacts.

Sidewalk argument: The current proposal does not offer a better pedestrian flow and the existing sidewalks / crosswalks offer the only way into Memorial Park, the new structure actually increases risks rather than improves the situation. ----------------
We sincerely hope that our elected city officials will carefully consider these concerns before agreeing to any further changes proposed by the builder. The builder’s main priority seems to be maximizing profits at the expense of the community’s well-being—whether through circumventing the $4M agreement, increasing the number of units to boost profits, or worsening parking and traffic conditions for existing residents.

Unfortunately, due to the arrival of my newborn son, I will be unable to attend the upcoming meeting. However, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with any city official in person to discuss these concerns. I strongly urge the city to engage with community members, not just the builder, to ensure that our voices are heard.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,
Sarah Schueler
474
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
474 of 761
#129769 Concern with the modification to the Westport Project Submitted
February 23, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
greatben3 <[email protected]>
Status
Solved
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Gian Martire
Address
21267 Stevens Creek Blvd
Planning Request Type
Planning Permit Submission/Resubmission
greatben3 February 23, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Dear Director,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the latest modification to the WestPort Project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard. In particular, the modification seems to include the elimination of the underground garage.

As a current resident and home owner of the Arroyo Village community, we are quite frustrated by the lack of guest parking availability as it is now. At the moment, there are 21 guest parking spots within the community, and 40 parking spots that are near the existing senior apartments. These parking spots are almost always full, and primarily occupied by the residents of the senior apartments (which does not have dedicated underground parking). With the addition of 136 new units in the larger senior apartment, but only 40 more ground parking spots, I could not see how this would allow a reasonable life quality for whoever lives in the new senior apartments, let alone allowing any guests to find parking within the Arroyo Village community.

Imagine a senior resident returning to home from grocery shopping, only to find no parking available, and the nearest public parking is either the Cupertino Sports Center or Target. They would have to hand carry all the grocery and walk a quarter mile to get home.

Eventually, people will learn to avoid using their cars whenever possible, so as to not lose the precious parking spot that they currently occupy. These situations are common in Beijing or Tokyo, where parking is scarce and expensive, but I did not expect people living in a newly built apartment in the center of Cupertino would have to face the same difficulty.

I understand that there will be a public hearing to discuss the modification proposal, but I am unable to attend due to some conflicts. If this item is being discussed as part of the modification proposal, please take this fact into your careful consideration. Also please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions regarding the current situation of the parking space.

Thank you
Hanchi C.

Gian Martire February 25, 2025 at 4:50 PM
Thank you for your comment. I will add this to the file and include it in the staff report.

Support Software by Zendesk
2/25/25, 4:51 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/129769/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/129769/print 1/1 475 CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
475 of 761
From: Luke Connolly
To: Gian Martire
Subject: FW: Project Changes At Westport
Date: Sunday, March 2, 2025 4:44:43 PM
FYI.

Luke Connolly
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-1275
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 3:59 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Cc: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Project Changes At Westport
What's the approval process for the following amendment for the Westport project plus a reduction in parking?
"Development Permit Amendment and Architectural & Site Approval to modify Building 1 to increase the residential unit from 123 units to 136 units (an overall increase of 13 units), eliminate the basement-level parking garage, reduce the ground floor retail from ~12,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft., and a request to waive the Park Land Dedication Fee. " The Westport site has been sold to three property owners as I understand. Would the waiver on Park Land Dedicate Fee be applicable to all three parcels or just to the remaining unfinished parcel?
The last approval included underground parking for the BMR units for senior independent living. What will happen to the parking spaces promised for that project in the underground garage of the last approval?
Thanks for clarifying these.

Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
476
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
476 of 761
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Danessa Techmanski <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 11:57 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Project Changes At Westport
Dear City Council, City Manager, and Planning Commission, I am writing you regarding the following project change proposal for the Westport development:

M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003
Development Permit Amendment and Architectural & Site Approval to modify Building 1 to increase the residential unit from 123 units to 136 units (an overall increase of 13 units), eliminate the basement-level parking garage, reduce the ground floor retail from ~12,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft., and a request to waive the Park Land Dedication Fee. For details, please see the 2024 Applications tab below. This proposal is under review.

I find the request for these changes to the retirement development at Westport to be ludicrous on a number of levels including setting precedents for other developments within our city and also for their negative impact on our residents' quality of life.

In terms of precedents, I think that we need to hold developers accountable to their development agreements in most cases. Allowing developers to go back on their word is like having no real plan at all. Additionally this allows developers to secure plan approvals that would otherwise not pass and then partially build while awaiting new housing bills that they can take advantage of in the future. Keep in mind bills like pending SB79 or any of the other housing bills that call for a reduction in parking. Ditto for reductions in park or other fees. It has become a game with developers being the only ones who are winning at this.
477
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
477 of 761
As for quality of life, this is wrong on so many levels. As our residential developments become denser and denser we need to rely on more public park spaces and their upgrades, Not less!
The parking reduction is awful. Although Hopper works well for some it is too area restricted and inconvenient for many. How do you use Hopper when you want to load up or purchase large bulky items? What about multiple stops? How do you carpool and pick up friends? I carry many items that I use in my car and I can’t do that with Hopper either. I can only take it part way to many places and then I would have to figure out how to do the last miles and the first miles getting back to Hopper on my return. If people are forced to use Uber and Hopper that means double the trips as the rides come in and then leave after the return which doubles our traffic! We just don’t have the connected mass transit to support this.

The proposed cut to retail is also horrible. We need to put something in place that ensures that retail that is removed from a site is reincorporated in any new development plans. Already we are losing so much retail space along Steven’s Creek where Staples and Panera and Voyager coffee are. Those places continue to be busy and will be sorely missed when they are gone. I hear of many residents really being tired of the inconvenience of having to drive farther and spend their tax dollars in other cities. I can’t believe that the original retail of 40,000 sq. ft. was reduced to 12,000 sq. ft. and now they want only 4,000 sq. ft?!!! This is right across from our busy De Anza College as well.

Thank you sincerely,
Danessa Techmanski
33-year Cupertino resident
478
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
478 of 761
From: Steve Lim
To: Gian Martire
Subject: Re: Westport Senior Community Center - important arguments for public hearing Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:11:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Martire,
I am a current resident and owner of a property at Arroyo Village, bordering onto the proposed Westport community, I am expressing my deepest concerns for the proposed changes and hope you can review these and take them into consideration.

Key Concerns

1. Changes to the Original Agreement: The builder/owner made commitments to both city officials and residents to create a community that wouldn’t negatively impact Cupertino. However, the builder has since revised the plans to prioritize profit, disregarding the needs of future and nearby residents.

2. Traffic and Safety: The traffic and crosswalk conditions at Mary and Memorial Park are already hazardous. The new construction will worsen visibility for pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents, especially for families and the elderly.

Concerns Regarding the Builder’s Arguments
Retail and Parking Issues:

Retail Space Planning: The retail space in Building 1 has not been properly marketed, and the placement of benches limits its appeal to potential merchants. The lack of designated retail parking is a problem, with current spaces often filled and no additional parking available due to permit-only restrictions.

Inadequate Resident Parking: The current proposal offers fewer than 30% of units with parking, which assumes an unrealistic number of residents won’t own cars. This will worsen parking problems for all.

Unkept Promises to Residents: Existing residents were promised underground parking for the next phase, but this promise is no longer being honored.

Senior Fee Concerns:

Contradictory Arguments: The builder claims future residents can walk 0.5 miles to a “major public transit hub” but argues they can’t walk to the nearby park (less than 0.5 miles away). This inconsistency suggests an attempt to bypass the $4M agreement, which would impact residents and the city.

Impact on Local Facilities: Current residents frequently use nearby amenities like the 479
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
479 of 761
park, senior center, and community center. The addition of more residents will strain these resources and increase trash and congestion.

I kindly urge the city’s elected officials to carefully consider these issues before approving further changes proposed by the builder. The builder is prioritizing profit at the expense of the community’s well-being.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Steven Lim
480
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
480 of 761
March 7,2025
Gian Martire
Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1
Dear Mr. Matire,
I am a, long time, resident of the Casa De Anza Condominium complex on Mary Ave. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the March 11 meeting of the Planning Commission, to share my concerns about one modification for this project. I believe that the Planning Commission needs to carefully evaluate the impact of the elimination of the underground parking. From the drawings that are available, it looks like onsite, ground level, parking is inadequate to serve the needs of a project consisting of 135 dwelling units and 35 non-residential memory care units. There appears to be only 40 or parking spaces. I would hope the Commission would ascertain the number of staff needing parking spaces during the day and evening and how many spaces would be available for visitors and outside medical staff visiting residents.

From the early planning for the Westport projects, there were promises of underground parking. First, that was eliminated from the project #3 townhomes. There were still promises that there would be underground parking for the #2 and #1 projects. The #2 building developers, managed to talk the City into letting them eliminate the underground parking and now, the developer of the #1 building wants to eliminate underground parking, claiming that they could be allowed to eliminate it because it is close to a major transportation hub. A bus stop on Stevens Creek Blvd., in no way, constitutes a major transportation hub for the foreseeable future.

There is another project planned for the west side of Mary Ave, to be called the Villa Apartments. This is to be a complex of 40 apartments, which will require restructuring the traffic lanes, downsizing the width of the bike lanes, eliminating parallel parking on the east side of Mary Ave. and replacing diagonal parking with parallel parking along the length of the Villa Apartments, resulting in a significant reduction of parking space along Mary Ave. In addition, the need for parking for Memorial Park visitors and events and Senior Center members is growing, as parking on Mary Ave is diminishing. For these reasons, the need for adequate parking within the building #1 property is imperative. I highly recommend that the #1 building project developers not be allowed to eliminate underground parking.

Another concern is that the building #1 drawing, is very unclear, as to what the impact will be on west bound traffic on Stevens Creek Blvd. The drawings look as though the proposed bike lane and bus stop will reduce the number of west bound traffic lanes to two, on a portion of Stevens Creek Blvd., from Mary Ave to the highway 85 on ramp. Additional traffic coming out of Mary Ave added to that from De Anza College, as well as west bound traffic coming along Stevens Creek Blvd. and the relocation of the bus stop to the west side of the Mary Ave intersection, would l cause serious backups.

I am copying this letter to the Planning Commissioners. Thank you for your attention to my concerns and I hope the Planning Commissioners have a chance to read the letter before the meeting on March 11.

Sincerely,
Jean Schwab
10353 Mary Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
481
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
481 of 761
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: Luke Connolly; Lindsay Nelson; Gian Martire
Subject: Fwd: Westport Project Changed
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2025 6:32:19 PM
Public comment for WP.

Thanks!
Piu
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mahesh Gurikar <[email protected]>
Date: April 17, 2025 at 9:17:24 PM EDT
To: [email protected], "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Westport Project Changed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Members of the Planning Commission,
Westport’s proposal to reduce the retail space and eliminate underground parking Please do not allow the requested changes to the project. 4000 sq fr retail space is too small.

One restaurant may take 4000 sft.

We need several retail businesses here.

May be it can be reduced to about 12000 Sft.

If underground parking is eliminated, those vehicles compete for parking on Mary Avenue.

Please recommend Westport stick to original plan approved. 482
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
482 of 761
Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
Resident of Cupertino
483
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
483 of 761
484
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
484 of 761
YIMBY Law
226 1 Market St reet STE 10 4 16
San Fran cisco, CA 9 4 114
hello@yim bylaw.org
1 YIMBY Law, 226 1 M ar k et St r eet STE 10 4 16 , San Fr an cis co , CA 9 4 114 1 04/ 18 /2025
Cit y of Cu p ert in o
Plan n in g Com m ission
10 30 0 Torre Ave
Cu p ert in o, CA 9 50 14
Via em ail (p lan n in g@ cu p ert in o.gov)
Re: Ap ril 22, 20 25 h earin g, a gen d a it em 4

Dear Plan n in g Com m ission of Cu p ert in o,
We are pleased to subm it th is letter of support of th e proposed Sum m erh ill Hom es project at 20 8 4 0 St even s Cr eek Bo u levard . YIMBY Law is a 50 1(c)3 n on - profit corporation, whose m ission is t o in crease t h e accessibilit y an d affordabilit y of h ou sin g in Californ ia. Th e Sum m erh ill Hom es project will con sist of 59 town h om es, wh ich in clu d e 12 below m arket rat e townhomes, on a site designated for residential d evelop m en t in t h e Cu p ert in o Hou sin g 2023- 20 31 Hou sin g Elem en t .

Sum m erh ill’s proposal is con sist en t wit h t h e Heart of t h e Cit y sp ecific p lan , t h e Cu p ert in o Gen eral Plan , an d local zon in g ord in an ces. As you r officials h ave alread y id en t ified t o Californ ia’s Dep art m en t of Hou sin g an d Com m u n it y Develop m en t t h at t h e sit e is ap p rop riat e for residen t ial u se an d m ay con t ribu t e t o t h e RHNA obligat ion s, it is in argu ably ben eficial t o public welfare that it be used for that purpose.

Californ ia Govern m en t Cod e § 6 558 9 .5, t h e Hou sin g Accou n t abilit y Act , p roh ibit s localit ies from den yin g h ousin g developm en t projects th at are com plian t with th e locality’s gen eral plan 485
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
485 of 761
YIMBY Law
226 1 Market St reet STE 10 4 16
San Fran cisco, CA 9 4 114
hello@yim bylaw.org
2 YIMBY Law, 226 1 M ar k et St r eet STE 10 4 16 , San Fr an cis co , CA 9 4 114 2 at the tim e the application was deem ed com plete, unless the locality can m ake findings that the proposed housing developm ent would be a threat to public health and safety.

I am sign in g t h is let t er bot h in m y cap acit y as th e Execu t ive Dir ect or of YIMBY Law, an d as a resid en t of Californ ia wh o is affect ed by t h e sh ort age of h ou sin g in ou r st at e. I look forward to seein g th is project approved an d bough t to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in t h e Bay Area.

Sin cerely,
Son ja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
486
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
486 of 761
From: Rafa Sonnenfeld
To: Santosh Rao
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Westport Cupertino Project Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 1:58:01 PM
Attachments: Westport Cupertino letter of support.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Rao and Commissioners,
Please find attached YIMBY Law's support letter for the above-referenced housing development project, which is being heard at your upcoming April 22nd meeting.

Thank you,
Rafa Sonnenfeld he/him
Senior Manager
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
487
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
487 of 761
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
April 18, 2025
Santosh Rao, Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:

YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Government Code Section 65589.5, also known as the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), and the Minimum Parking Requirements law, Government Code section 65863.2, commonly known as “AB 2097.” The Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws, including AB 2097, when evaluating the above-referenced project.

We write this letter to express YIMBY Law’s deep concern about the City’s position in the staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project is not eligible to use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 cannot be applied retroactively. Simply put, there is no basis in the text of AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, the interpretation of AB2097 is plainly inconsistent with the expressed intent of AB2097 to reduce the cost of constructing housing.

Taking the position that AB2097 cannot be applied to previously approved projects would also be inconsistent with State HCD guidance, including in a Technical Advisory published this past January.
488
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
488 of 761
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
We encourage the Planning Commission to reject the staff report’s unsupported position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project and instead approve the project’s requested parking reduction under AB2097
I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
489
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
489 of 761
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: Lindsay Nelson
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Westport Cupertino Project Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:33:26 PM
Attachments: Westport Cupertino letter of support.pdf
Hi! Lindsay
When you get comments re: agenda items, please make sure to forward to the project planner and Ben (if he doesn’t get PC emails).

Thanks
Piu
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:

From: Rafa Sonnenfeld <[email protected]>
Date: April 18, 2025 at 4:58:00 PM EDT
To: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
<[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Westport Cupertino Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Rao and Commissioners,
Please find attached YIMBY Law's support letter for the above-referenced housing development project, which is being heard at your upcoming April 22nd meeting.

Thank you,
Rafa Sonnenfeld he/him
Senior Manager
490
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
490 of 761
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
491
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
491 of 761
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
April 18, 2025
Santosh Rao, Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:

YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Government Code Section 65589.5, also known as the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), and the Minimum Parking Requirements law, Government Code section 65863.2, commonly known as “AB 2097.” The Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws, including AB 2097, when evaluating the above-referenced project.

We write this letter to express YIMBY Law’s deep concern about the City’s position in the staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project is not eligible to use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 cannot be applied retroactively. Simply put, there is no basis in the text of AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, the interpretation of AB2097 is plainly inconsistent with the expressed intent of AB2097 to reduce the cost of constructing housing.

Taking the position that AB2097 cannot be applied to previously approved projects would also be inconsistent with State HCD guidance, including in a Technical Advisory published this past January.
492
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
492 of 761
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
We encourage the Planning Commission to reject the staff report’s unsupported position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project and instead approve the project’s requested parking reduction under AB2097
I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
493
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
493 of 761
From: Santosh Rao
To: Lindsay Nelson; Luke Connolly
Subject: Fw: [April 22 Planning Commission Hearing, Item #4] Letter regarding Westport Cupertino Project Use of AB2097
Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 6:23:50 PM
Attachments: J Abrams Letter re Westport Building 1 Use of AB2097_041825.pdf Please include in written communications. Thank you.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]
From: Nicholas Roosevelt <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>; Tracy Kosolcharoen <[email protected]>; David Fung <[email protected]>; Seema Lindskog <[email protected]>; Steven Scharf <[email protected]>
Cc: James Abrams <[email protected]>; Simsik, Balint <[email protected]>; Zak, Cascade <[email protected]>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]>; Gian Martire <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [April 22 Planning Commission Hearing, Item #4] Letter regarding Westport Cupertino Project Use of AB2097
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Chair Rao and Commissioners—
Attached please find a letter from the project sponsor of Item #4 on the Planning Commission’s agenda for next Tuesday, April 22 (Modifications to the Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development).

The letter regards the project’s proposed use of the parking reduction measures provided for in AB2097.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Nick
494
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
494 of 761
-------------
Nick Roosevelt
J. Abrams Law, P.C.
538 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Email:[email protected]
Cell: (504)-717-9251
______________________________
This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
495
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
495 of 761
1 J. ABRAMS LAW, P.C.
538 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Nick Roosevelt
[email protected]

VIA E-EMAIL
April 18, 2025
Santosh Rao
Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1
Dear Chair Rao and Commissioners:

This firm represents the project sponsor of the “Building 1” development (“Building 1”) within the Westport Cupertino project (the “Project”). The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear proposed modifications to the Project on April 22, 2025.

We were surprised and disappointed to read the staff report published on April 17, in which the City states that the Project is ineligible to utilize a state law (AB2097) intended to make housing more feasible to construct by reducing residential parking requirements. The staff report simply states without justification that “AB2097 cannot apply retroactively to this previously entitled project.” This conclusion is surprising, partially because the Project’s application was filed nearly one year ago, the law was adopted prior to such application, and the sponsor has been consistently working with the City since that time.

As reflected in the staff report, the sponsor team is open to continuing to work with Planning staff on a design solution to add approximately 19 spaces to the Project’s surface parking lot if that is what it will take for the City to expediently approve the proposed design modifications to Building 1. However, we respectfully submit to the Planning Commission and City that its position that AB2097 cannot apply to the Project is inconsistent with: (1) the text of AB2097, (2) well established principles of statutory interpretation, (3) technical guidance published by State HCD, (4) technical assistance provided to the City of Los Angeles, and (5) the well-established AB2097 implementation program in the City of Los Angeles.

As such, we respectfully request the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Project’s proposed parking modifications as originally submitted (a total of 73 surface parking spaces with no basement parking) and without conditioning its recommendation on the provision of additional surface parking that would be inconsistent with applicable state law.
496
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
496 of 761
2 Background
The application for the proposed modifications to Building 1 was submitted June 17, 2024 and accepted by Planning staff as complete on October 31, 2024. As detailed in the staff report, the application requests five modifications:
• Increase the approved senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units, which is within the permitted density bonus for the Westport Cupertino project; • Reduce the total amount of proposed parking by eliminating the basement-level parking garage pursuant to AB2097, which allows for the elimination of parking requirements for projects within a half-mile of a major transit stop, such as the bus stop at Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard;1
• Utilize an available state density bonus concession to reduce otherwise required ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet;
• Make minor adjustments to the design of Building 1 that will reduce its height and decrease its overall square footage; and
• Waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee.

We generally refer the Commission to the Staff Report and our June 18, 2024 letter included in the agenda package for the April 22 hearing for further detail and justification for the requested modifications unrelated to AB2097.

The application was initially noticed for a hearing before the Planning Commission on February 25, 2025, then successively rescheduled to March 11, March 25, and then April 22 based on varying justifications including errors in required public noticing, onboarding of new staff, and the need for further time for City decisionmakers to understand the state laws being invoked as part of the proposed modifications.

On the same day the project sponsor was informed on April 10 that the hearing would actually proceed on April 22, we were verbally informed that the City might take the position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Project because it cannot be applied retroactively to already approved projects.

For the following reasons, we respectfully submit this interpretation of AB2097 is not supportable.
1 We note that previous approvals for the Westport Cupertino project, Staff Report, and the Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 all make clear that there is no dispute that the Project is located within a half-mile of a major transit stop as required by AB2097. See, e.g., Staff Report p. 8 and Addendum p. 4-23.
497
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
497 of 761
3 Nothing in AB2097 Says It Only Applies to Wholly “New” Projects Simply stated, there is no language in AB2097 stating that it only applies to projects approved after its effective date of January 1, 2023. However, the law is clear about which types of previously approved projects are disqualified. Disqualified projects are those that:
[eliminate] commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. See Govt. Code § 65863.2(h)(1).

Through this clause, the authors of the legislation identified which projects are disqualified. The authors did not include previously approved projects in this list.

It is a well-established principle of California statutory interpretation that the reader may not insert language, nor ignore language which has been inserted. See Harbor Fumigation, Inc. v.

County of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist., 43 Cal.App.4th 854, 860 (1996). Here, the City’s position that AB2097 cannot apply retroactively to the Project depends on a broad prohibition on retroactive use that simply is not in the text of the law, while ignoring text that conversely supports there is no such broad prohibition on retroactive use of the law and that the clear intent of the law is to allow projects (particularly housing projects) to reduce their cost of construction, subject to narrow exceptions.

More specifically, AB2097 states that the “Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions” and that “[t]herefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.” See Govt. Code § 65863.2(i). This clause does not say the intent of AB2097 is to prohibit the imposition of parking requirements moving forward, it instead clearly and broadly expresses the intent of the state legislature to prohibit the imposition of parking requirements for all projects within a half mile of a major transit stop.

AB2097 also provides that cities may impose EV and ADA parking requirements to “new” multifamily residential or nonresidential development. See Govt. Code § 65863.2(f). That is, in addition to setting forth the limited circumstances where an otherwise eligible project can be disqualified from using AB2097, the state legislature also clearly provides the certain instances where “new” projects can be subject to certain parking requirements. In other words, AB2097 addresses both retroactive and prospective application of the law for certain types of projects, but does not broadly prohibit retroactive use of the law, certainly not for an approved housing development like this Project.

State HCD Guidance Makes Clear that AB2097 Can Apply to Existing Uses Included as Attachment 1 to this letter is a Technical Advisory published by State HCD this past January which clearly states that AB2097: (1) can apply to existing buildings or structures; and (2) can be used to eliminate existing parking agreements with a public agency that were executed before January 1, 2023. See highlighted text on page 6. 498
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
498 of 761
4 State HCD Has Issued Technical Assistance Letters for a Project in Los Angeles Proposing to Invoke AB2097 After Initially Being Approved With a Parking Requirement Included as Attachment 2 are two letters issued by State HCD to the City of Los Angeles where the underlying project facts make clear that the project in question was approved with a parking requirement and thereafter proposed to eliminate it using AB2097. See highlighted text on page 2 of the March 28, 2024 letter and page 1 of the November 17, 2023 letter.

Well Established AB2097 Implementation Policy in Los Angeles Supports Applicability of AB2097 to Previously Approved Projects
Including as Attachment 3 is City of Los Angeles Inter-Departmental Memo regarding Implementation of AB 2097 provided detailed guidance on the City’s implementation of law and clearly setting forth the City’s position that AB2097 applies to previously approved projects seeking to amend their entitlements to invoke AB2097. See page 5.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reconsider the position regarding AB2097 in the Staff Report and recommend approval of the sponsor’s proposed modification to the Project’s parking proposal as proposed (utilizing AB2097). We emphasize that project sponsor is not proposing the parking modifications on a whim (nor is it proposing to entirely eliminate parking as it is entitled to under AB2097), but instead is pursuing the modification in a tailored effort to make the construction of Building 1 financeable in a manner that will deliver new housing consistent with the City’s Housing Element and state law.

Sincerely,
Nick Roosevelt
CC:

Piu Ghosh
Planning Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Floy Andrews
City Attorney
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
499
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
499 of 761
5 ATTACHMENT 1
State HCD Technical Advisory on AB2097
500
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
500 of 761
California Department of Housing and Community Development

TECHNICAL ADVISORY
On the Implementation of AB 2097, Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements (Statutes of 2022)
Housing Policy Development Division
January 2025
501
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
501 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 2 of 11
Contents
Section 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2 Section 2.Key Provisions of AB 2097 ............................................................................. 3 Section 3.Project Site Eligibility ...................................................................................... 4 Section 4.Determining AB 2097 Eligibility....................................................................... 5 Section 5.Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) .............................................................. 5  Voluntary and Required Parking .......................................................................... 5  Project Eligibility ................................................................................................... 6  Major Transit Stop Eligibility ................................................................................. 6  Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) .................................................................... 7  Transit Service Frequency ................................................................................... 7 Section 6.Recommended Methodologies ....................................................................... 8  Peak Morning and Afternoon Commute Periods .................................................. 8  Peak Period Bus Service Interval Frequency ....................................................... 9  Intersections of Two or More Major Bus Routes .................................................. 9  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations ........................................................................ 9 Section 7. Links to Other State Resources ...................................................................... 9 Section 8.AB 2097 Statute (Government Code Section 65863.2) ................................ 10 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
On September 22, 2022, Governor Newsom signed
Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (Chapter 459, Statutes of
2022), which aims to promote more affordable housing
solutions and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
removing mandatory parking minimums within one-half
mile of major transit stops (with some exceptions) and
addressing excess parking spaces that drive up costs.

This law took effect on January 1, 2023.

On September 19, 2024, Governor Newsom
strengthened these efforts by signing AB 2553 (Chapter
275, Statutes of 2024), which expands the definition of “major transit stop” by increasing the frequency of bus service intervals to 20 minutes or less during peak periods. This portion of the law takes effect January 1, 2025.

In combination, AB 2097 empowers developers and communities to prioritize housing and other development projects near transit hubs, which supports more sustainable and connected communities while addressing California’s critical housing and climate challenges.

The California Department of
Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has authority
to enforce AB 2097 pursuant to
Government Code section 65585,
subdivision (j)(12). This technical
advisory provides guidance and
considerations regarding
implementation of AB 2097.
502
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
502 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 3 of 11
SECTION 2. KEY PROVISIONS OF AB 2097
The applicable statutory citations that define the provisions of AB 2097 can be found in the following sections of the Government and Public Resources Codes.

AB 2097 Statute
1 A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on eligible residential, commercial, or other development projects located within one-half mile of public transit.

Gov. Code,
§ 65863.2,
subd. (a)
2 “Public transit” means a “major transit stop” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21155.

Gov. Code,
§ 65863.2,
subd. (e)(5)
3 “Major transit stop” is defined in Public Resources Code section 21064.3.

A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units, or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop. Major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan also qualify.

Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21155,
subd. (b)
4 “Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
(a) Existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
(b) Ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) Intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21064.3
5 (a) “Bus rapid transit” means a public mass transit service provided by a public agency or by a public private partnership that includes all the following features:
(1) Full-time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
(2) Transit signal priority.
(3) All-door boarding.
(4) Fare collection system that promotes efficiency.
(5) Defined stations.
(b) “Bus rapid transit station” means a clearly defined bus station served by a bus rapid transit.

Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21060.2
6 The “applicable regional transportation plan” is prepared by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) as part of the organization’s sustainable communities strategy. There are 18 MPOs throughout the state of California.

Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21155,
subd. (a)
503
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
503 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 4 of 11
SECTION 3. PROJECT SITE ELIGIBILITY
Whether AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing minimum parking requirements on a development project depends on the proposed land use or whether there is a commercial parking agreement in place. For residential projects, the applicability of AB 2097 depends on the type of proposed housing, total number of housing units, and proposed affordability mix.

Table 1. Project Site Eligibility
AB 2097 prohibition on minimum parking requirements…
Does not apply to
the following uses
or circumstances

 Event centers. 1
 Hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. 2  Commercial parking in a contractual agreement with a public agency, executed before January 1, 2023. 3
Applies without
exceptions to the
following uses 
 Development containing fewer than 20 housing units. 4  Affordable, senior, student, or special needs housing, where at least 20 percent of the total number of units are dedicated to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities. 5
 Developments subject to other state law parking reductions. 6 Applies with
exceptions* to the
following uses 
 Other residential-only developments. 7
 Other mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.7
 Transitional or supportive housing.
7  Commercial and other developments. 8
 Residential hotels, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50519. 2 *EXCEPTIONS. A local public agency can make written findings—supported by a preponderance of evidence—within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application that having no minimum parking requirements would have a substantially negative impact on any of the following:
 Regional Housing Needs. The local jurisdiction’s ability to meet its share of the regional housing need for low- and very low-income households. 9  Special Housing Needs. The local jurisdiction’s ability to meet housing needs for elderly or persons with disabilities as identified in Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(7). 10  Existing Residential or Commercial Parking. Within 0.5 mile of the development project. 11 1 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (d).
2 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(6).
3 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (h)(1).
4 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (c)(2).
5 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (c)(1).
6 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (c)(3).
7 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(1).
8 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a).
9 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b)(1).
10 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b)(2).
11 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b)(3).
504
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
504 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 5 of 11
SECTION 4. DETERMINING AB 2097 ELIGIBILITY
Does the project include an event center or transient
lodging (e.g., hotel, motel, bed and breakfast)?
No. Is the project located within one-half mile of a major transit stop in the applicable Regional Transportation Plan? Yes. A public agency may impose
min. automobile parking requirements.

No. Is the project within one-half mile of a major
transit stop as defined in PRC § 21064.3?
Yes. Eligible for AB 2097, possibly
with exceptions (see Section 3).

Yes. Eligible for AB 2097, possibly
with exceptions (see Section 3).

No. A public agency may impose min.
automobile parking requirements
SECTION 5. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS)
 Voluntary and Required Parking

1. Can a public agency still require
parking in certain circumstances?
Yes, but only in limited situations and only
for certain types of projects – see Section
3 (Project Site Eligibility). 12

2. Is voluntary parking allowed?
Yes. AB 2097 prohibits minimum required
parking for qualifying projects but does not
impose a maximum parking standard. An
applicant may choose to add parking even
if they qualify for a full parking exemption
under state law, although local jurisdictions
may impose a maximum parking
requirement. A public agency may require
voluntary parking spaces be used for car
share vehicles, be made publicly available
(e.g., not assigned to a specific use or
business), or be charged a parking fee, but
cannot require that any voluntary parking is
free of charge to residents. 13
12 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b).
13 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (g).

3. Does AB 2097 apply to commercial or
other non-residential development?
Yes. AB 2097’s prohibition on minimum
parking requirements also extends to
commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential land uses – with exceptions.

See Section 3 (Project Site Eligibility). 14

4. Can a public agency still require
accessible or electric vehicle (EV)
parking?
Yes, a public agency can still require the
same percentage or number of accessible
and EV parking spaces as would have
otherwise applied if AB 2097 did not apply,
based on local and state requirements. AB
2097 does not change (i.e., reduce,
eliminate, or preclude enforcement of) the
minimum parking requirement for spaces
that are accessible for persons with
disabilities or provide charging equipment
for EVs. 15
14 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a).
15 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (f).
505
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
505 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 6 of 11
A public agency should be aware that it
may eliminate local parking standard
requirements and nonetheless require
accessible and EV parking, for example,
calculated as a percentage of provided
parking.

5. Can a public agency still require bicycle
parking?
A public agency may require and enforce
bicycle parking. AB 2097 applies solely to
automobile parking requirements. 16
 Project Eligibility

6. Does AB 2097 only apply to new
“ground-up” development projects?
No. In addition to new construction,
AB 2097 also applies to changes of use in
existing buildings or structures, including
the creation or expansion of qualifying
uses. See Section 3 above for Project Site
Eligibility.

7. Which public agencies does AB 2097
apply to? What about the coastal zone?
AB 2097 defines “public agency” to mean
the state or any state agency, board, or
commission, any city, county, city and
county, including charter cities, or special
district, or any agency, board, or
commission of the city, county, city and
county, special district, joint powers
authority, or other political subdivision. 17
AB 2097 applies to public agencies, which
includes the Coastal Commission. See
memo by the California Coastal
Commission, dated June 30, 2023.

8. Can AB 2097 be used to eliminate an
existing parking agreement?
Yes, with the exception of contractual
commercial parking agreements with a
public agency that were executed before
January 1, 2023. 18
 Major Transit Stop Eligibility

9. How is the “within one-half mile” distance
measured for AB 2097?
The distance to a major transit stop is
measured in a straight line from the nearest
edge of the parcel containing the proposed
project to any point on the parcel or parcels
that make up the property upon which a
major transit stop is located. See HCD
Technical Assistance Letter to the City of
San Clemente, dated November 17, 2023.

Note: other statutes may measure distance
from transit differently from AB 2097.
16 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a).
17 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(4).
18 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (h)(1).

10. Does any type of existing rail station
qualify as a major transit stop?
Any existing rail station – including those
without facilities, that are unstaffed or have
infrequent or limited service – automatically
qualifies as a major transit stop. 19

11. What is the difference between “major
transit stop” and “high quality transit
corridor?”
A “high quality transit corridor” is generally
more expansive compared to “major transit
stop.” A “high quality transit corridor” is a bus
corridor with a fixed-route and service
intervals no longer than 15 minutes during
peak commute hours. 20 A major transit stop
identifies a point, parcel, or intersection.
19 Pub. Res. Code, § 21064.3, subd. (a).
20 Pub. Res. Code, § 21155, subd. (b)
506
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
506 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 7 of 11
AB 2097 specifies a site’s relationship to a
“major transit stop” and not a “high quality
transit corridor.”

12. What type of ferry terminal qualifies as a
major transit stop for AB 2097?
A ferry terminal qualifies as a major transit
stop if it is served by either a bus or rail
transit service. 21
 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

13. What if a location is a “major transit stop”
in the current RTP, but does not meet any
criteria in Public Resources Code section
21064.3 as a “major transit stop”?
A major transit stop that is included in the
applicable RTP qualifies nearby sites for the
purposes of AB 2097. 22 The statute does not
distinguish between existing and planned
major transit stops, nor future changes or
improvements. A site that qualifies based on
its proximity to a major transit stop that is
included in the RTP does not need to meet
any criteria in Public Resources Code
section 21064.3. See HCD Technical
Assistance Letters to the City of Los
Angeles, dated November 17, 2023 and
March 28, 2024.

14. What if the current RTP identifies a major
transit stop that no longer meets any
criteria in Public Resources Code section
21064.3?
The RTP remains in effect and binding for
AB 2097 eligibility during its applicable time
period, including if a major transit stop no
longer meets the criteria in Public Resources
Code section 21064.3.22
 Transit Service Frequency

15. Can different bus routes be combined for
calculating service frequency?
No, except for “colinear line families” (see
Question 16). For the purposes of AB 2097,
a major transit stop must have two or more
bus routes present, and each route must
stop at the intersection with a frequency of
service interval of 20 minutes or less during
peak morning and afternoon commute
periods.

See Section 6 (Peak Period Bus Service
Interval Frequency) for HCD
recommendation on calculating interval
frequency.

16. Can a local and rapid or express bus line
schedule be combined for calculating
service frequency?
For purposes of applying AB 2097, “colinear
line families” (i.e., bus routes that share the
same route, such as local and rapid lines)
21 Pub. Res. Code, § 21064.3, subd. (b).
are combined and considered as one service
route for service frequency. A line family that
creates a loop (e.g., clockwise and
counterclockwise service) is also considered
one route for service frequency, even if each
direction has a unique route number. Line
families are intended to function as one bus
route, where transit riders typically board the
first bus available whether it is a local or
rapid/express line, or whether the route
loops. Only the intersections where the
buses stop with a frequency interval of 20
minutes or less during morning and
afternoon peak periods may qualify as major
transit stops. Note: to qualify as an
intersection of two or more major bus routes,
a colinear line family must intersect with
another qualifying major bus route that is not
part of the line family. See HCD Technical
Assistance Letter to the City of Los Angeles,
dated March 8, 2024.
22 Pub. Res. Code, § 21155, subd. (b).
507
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
507 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 8 of 11

17. Can different bus routes be combined to
calculate frequency for the portion of a
shared route (“trunk line”) but calculated
separately where the routes are split?
Aside from colinear line families (see
Question 16), each bus route is individually
assessed for frequency, including unique bus
lines that share the same course for a
portion of their route.

SECTION 6. RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGIES
HCD presents the following recommendations to assist local agencies in their implementation of AB 2097. These recommendations, while not required, are intended to facilitate consistent implementation of the law. HCD acknowledges there are certain methodological details absent from the law for which local agencies must necessarily “fill in the gaps” to process development applications. The recommendations in this section are intended to reduce barriers to development due to required parking minimums.
 Peak Morning and Afternoon Commute Periods
Where available, HCD recommends public agencies refer to the peak hours in their applicable RTP to account for regional variability. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies a threshold bus service interval of 20 minutes or less “during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods” but does not indicate definitive ranges of time. The most commonly identified peak hours from a sampling of MPOs and their RTPs were 6:00 to 9:00 am and 3:00 to 7:00 pm (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. Sampling of MPO Peak Morning and Afternoon Peak Commute Periods (2024) Morning (AM) Afternoon (PM)
MPO23 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00
AMBAG
BCAG
Fresno COG
Kern COG
MTC
SACOG
SANDAG
SBCAG
SCAG
Tahoe RPA
TCAG
23 For a full list of MPOs, see https://calcog.org/our-members. 508
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
508 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 9 of 11
 Peak Period Bus Service Interval Frequency
HCD recommends averaging bus service intervals across the combined morning and afternoon peak periods for the purposes of maximizing housing production potential and to account for peak-directional service (e.g., more frequent inbound morning service). The average frequency must be 20 minutes or less across both peak periods. In other words, two or more bus routes must stop at a given location at least 21 times in a seven-hour period to qualify for AB 2097 prohibition on minimum parking requirements. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies a statutory threshold of “two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less” during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods but does not provide a methodology for calculating peak frequency.  Intersections of Two or More Major Bus Routes
HCD recommends that a location or parcel should be considered within one-half mile of a major transit stop if it is served by two or more major bus routes that are within 500 feet of each other (about 0.1 mile) measured in a straight line. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies an “intersection of two or more major bus routes” as one criterion that may qualify as a major transit stop, but the statute does not provide a definition of “intersection.” Based on feedback from MPOs and Caltrans, acceptable distances for a passenger to transfer between transit routes on foot range between 150 feet and 500 feet. Therefore, any two or more unique bus routes that stop within 500 feet walking proximity to one another would be considered “intersecting.” See Section 5, Question 9 for measurement of one-half mile distance.  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations
HCD recommends that a BRT station may qualify as a major transit stop if the station itself is adjacent to a full-time dedicated transit lane, since AB 2097 is based on distance from a major transit stop as opposed to a corridor. Public Resources Code section 21064.2, subdivision (a) defines “major transit stop” to include a site that contains an existing BRT station, which in turn is defined as a bus station served by BRT. 24 In addition to frequent peak service intervals, transit signal priority, and other boarding features, BRT is considered a faster bus-based system because the service includes operation in a full-time dedicated bus lane or separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation. 25 However, the statute does not indicate whether the entirety of the BRT route, a majority portion of the BRT route, or just the station itself must be within or adjacent to a separate lane from other vehicular traffic.

SECTION 7. LINKS TO OTHER STATE RESOURCES
Please note that the CEQA Site Check map uses Caltrans data, which is updated regularly and may vary in methodology from those recommended in Section 6 above.  California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI). CEQA Site Check Map. Layer:

Existing Major Transit Stops per Public Resources Code sections 21155 and 21064.3. https://sitecheck.opr.ca.gov/
24 Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.2, subd. (b).
25 Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.2, subd. (a).
509
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
509 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 10 of 11
 Caltrans. High Quality Transit Stops Online Map, Layer: “Major Transit Stop.” https://data.ca.gov/dataset/ca-hq-transit-stops
 California Coastal Commission AB 2097 Memorandum.
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcp/mrfcj/housing.html
SECTION 8. AB 2097 STATUTE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.2) 65863.2.
(a) A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a city, county, or city and county may impose or enforce minimum automobile parking requirements on a project that is located within one-half mile of public transit if the public agency makes written findings, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, on any of the following:
(1) The city’s, county’s, or city and county’s ability to meet its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 for low- and very low income households. (2) The city’s, county’s, or city and county’s ability to meet any special housing needs for the elderly or persons with disabilities identified in the analysis required pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(3) Existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project.
(c) For a housing development project, subdivision (b) shall not apply if the housing development project satisfies any of the following:
(1) The development dedicates a minimum of 20 percent of the total number of housing units to very low, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities.
(2) The development contains fewer than 20 housing units. (3) The development is subject to parking reductions based on the provisions of any other applicable law.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an event center shall provide parking, as required by local ordinance, for employees and other workers.
(e) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Housing development project” means a housing development project as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.
(2) “Low- and very low-income households” means the same as “lower income households” as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) “Moderate-income households” means the same as “persons and families of moderate income,” as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 510
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
510 of 761
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 11 of 11
(4) “Public agency” means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(5) “Public transit” means a major transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
(6) “Project” does not include a project where any portion is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except where a portion of a housing development project is designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(f) This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development that is located within one-half mile of public transit to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if this section did not apply.
(g) When a project provides parking voluntarily, a public agency may impose requirements on that voluntary parking to require spaces for car share vehicles, require spaces to be shared with the public, or require parking owners to charge for parking. A public agency may not require that voluntarily provided parking is provided to residents free of charge. (h) (1) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. This subdivision shall apply to an existing contractual agreement that is amended after January 1, 2023, provided that the amendments do not increase commercial parking requirements. (2) A project may voluntarily build additional parking that is not shared with the public. (i) The Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.
511
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
511 of 761
6 ATTACHMENT 2
State HCD Technical Assistance Letters to Los Angeles
512
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
512 of 761
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
March 28, 2024
Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning
City of Los Angeles
200 North Spring Street, Suite 525
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Lisa Webber:

RE: Los Angeles AB 2097 Implementation – 12124 Pacific Avenue – Letter of Technical Assistance
Thank you for providing clarification on the circumstances surrounding the proposed project at 12124 Pacific Avenue (Project). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) previously provided a Letter of Technical Assistance relating to this Project on November 17, 2023 (attached). The purpose of this letter is to expand upon the technical assistance provided in the previous letter.

As you are aware, Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21155, subdivision (b) – which serves as the basis for the definition of public transit in Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022) – defines major transit stops as equivalent to those in PRC section 21064.3, “except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan” (emphasis added). This indicates that any major transit stop that is identified in a regional transportation plan (RTP) can and should serve to qualify nearby sites for the purposes of AB 2097. The law does not distinguish between planned and existing major transit stops, or indeed place any qualifiers on the major transit stops other than their “inclusion” within the RTP. Therefore, a site that qualifies on the basis of its proximity to a major transit stop that is included in the RTP does not need to meet the 15-minute qualification standard of PRC section 21064.3, nor should it be evaluated for that purpose.

In the context of the Project, the Venice Boulevard/Centinela Avenue stop is shown in (i.e., is “included in”) the 2020 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan.1 SCAG staff has confirmed that this stop qualified as a planned major transit stop for the 2020 plan based on the methodology employed at the 1 Page 75 of the Connect SoCal 2020 Transit Technical Report. Connect SoCal 2020 is the current RTP for the SCAG region and will remain in effect until it is next updated. 513
CC 05-20-2025 Searchable Packet
513 of 761
Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning